dr. Janos DRABIK: Equals and More Equals (first part of the book)

dr. Janos DRABIK

Equals and More Equals

Semitism Is an Organized Private Power

 The Book (first part; second part in progress)

From the contents:

Chosenness – the essence of Semitism
Is there Bolshevism without Jews?
Double citizenship and dual loyalty
The rule of the Zionist Power Configuration and of cultural Marxism in America

The book is only partially translated. We need a volunteer translator. The book is not yet published, since it is less than half translated into English; it is only available in digital format in the Janos Drabik Box.

The full Contents of the book are below as follows:


On the Author


Chosenness – the essence of Semitism

The religious chosenness

Reform Judaism and chosenness

The Islam and the chosenness of the Jews

Disraeli and the chosenness of the Jews

The white race and the Jewish chosenness

Nietzsche about the chosenness of the Jews

The ethnical-racial chosenness

Is the separatism feasible?

Jewry as a genetic community

Semitism as the strategy assuring the ethnic survival

The chosen people as an organized community of interest

An answer to Judaism and Semitism

Is there Bolshevism without Jews?

Why is there a Jewish Question?

Separatism on one hand, interbreeding on the other hand

How did the relationship between the organized Jewry and the political left develop?

Is it possible to legitimately judge the collective attitude of the Jewry?

Criticizing the Jewry is a taboo

The roots of the separatism and of the double standard in Judaism

Is there a Jewish superiority?

The Jews form a separate people

The sect Chabad Lubavitch on the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles

Is it good for the Jews if Europe loses its identity?

Double citizenship and dual loyalty

The Jew-image of the anti-Semite is only a “phantasmagoria”

“Anti-Semitism without Jews”

What is Semitism?

How can the dilemma of the Hungarian Jewry be solved?

What are the roots of the Jewish dual loyalty?

The role of the ethnic separatism in spying

The Cambridge Fives and the dual loyalty

The organized Jewry and the Bolshevik revolution

Jacob H. Schiff, one of the creators of the Soviet system

When did a turn appear in the behaviour of Jacob Schiff?

Which is the power to which the organized Jewry is loyal in the 21st century?

The ZPC as the interest enforcer of Israel in Washington

To whom are the Jews living in America loyal primarily?

Control centre for the creation of the Zionist hegemony

What characterizes the way of life of the leading Zionists?

Ethnically determined truth

The rule of the Zionist Power Configuration and of cultural Marxism in America

Globalization of the Zionist power

The Jewish Zionist hegemony in the cultural and political life of America

Is there any alternative to the Zionist hegemony?

Appointment of double citizens to key government positions must be opposed

The philosophical School of Frankfurt and the cultural revolution

The relationship of the School of Frankfurt with the Judaism

What is the essence of Jewish identity?

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on Jewish identity

The following few lines of the Contents represent the un-translated parts of the book. The book is unfinished, we need a volunteer translator fo finish it.

Professor Goldwin Smith on the Jewish Question

The Renascence of the Jewish people

What comes after the most successful century of the global people?

The Jewish supremacy and the Zionism

What is the essence of Jewish ideology?

The Jewish century and the Bolshevism

There is no Bolshevik takeover without Jews

The Bolshevik Bonapartism

Does the Jewry have a collective self-criticism?

Why do the Jews consider themselves a special people?

Would the removal of the Jews solve the Jewish Question?

The Jewry must choose between openness and separatism

Is it possible to change the Jewish collective conscience?

Israel’s behaviour affects the judgment of the whole of Jewry

The “Samson alternative” does not solve anything

Christian Zionism

What is special in the teachings of the dispensationalists?

Teachings of the American Protestant churches

American presidents and the Christian Zionists

Historical roots of Christian Zionism

What does Israel mean for the Christian Zionists?

Acceleration of the Armageddon

Repulsion to the Arabs

Expulsion of the Palestinians

Spreading of anti-Islamic emotions after 9/11

Opposition of the peace process

Divine commission of the Christian Zionists

Political importance of the Christian Zionists

Israel Shamir on Christian Zionism

Long-term and deeper causes of World War I

World-rule strategy of the money power elite

Development of the organized money power in the British Empire

Russian roots of World War I

America is also prepared for the war by the money cartel

The Russian Tsar’s help for the victory of the Union

The Prussian-Austrian war

Napoleon III declares war on Prussia

Renewal of the “alliance of the three emperors”

The money power world elite prepares for the starting of the world war

Why did the money power world elite want a great war?

Looking back to one hundred years, how do historians see the World War I?

Freemasonry is the servant of the money power

“Stabbing in the back” of Germany and President Wilson’s 14 points

The money power world elite shifts to pacifism

Freemasonry in the service of Zionism

Erich Ludendorff on the connection between freemasonry and Jewry

How do Judaism, Christianity and freemasonry relate to each other?

Can it be proved that the Jewry controls freemasonry?

Ideological war of the freemasonry

The freemasonry as the vanguard of the money power elite

World War I burst out one hundred years ago

The money cartel and the international freemasonry rearrange Europe

Freemasonry in the service of the international money cartel

Personal union of the English freemasons and the money cartel

The Zionist money cartel involves also America in the world war

Zionism and World War I

Relationship of the organized Jewry and freemasonry

Why does the freemasonry oppose the capital punishment?

Israel’s illegal war against the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip

Israel needs the natural gas of Gaza

What obligations does Israel have as an occupant power?

The Israeli army occupies the Gaza Strip

What was the real goal of the Israeli attack?



On the author

Dr. János Drábik is the retired leading programme editor of Radio Free Europe.

He was born on 9th June 1938 in Budapest. Initially he planned to become a cello player. He followed musical studies at the “Erkel Ferenc” Secondary School of Musical Art in Budapest as the pupil of Ede Banda, where he took the final examination in 1956. Nevertheless, due to breaking his hand, he was forced to change career. In 1960 he graduated from the Faculty of Political Science and Law of the “Eötvös Loránd” University of Sciences (ELTE) of Budapest, then from the Faculty of Humanities of the same university. In 1971 he took the final examination of lawyer – legal consultant, and previously he also graduated from the School of Journalism of the National Federation of Hungarian Journalists (MÚOSZ).

Until November 1979, he worked in various legal, editorial and state administration jobs. Prior to his leave to America, he was the chief of legal department of ERBE. He continued his studies at the New York University and in 1981 he became a registered legal consultant in New York State. In 1983 he went to Munich, Germany, being employed at Radio Free Europe, where he wrote and edited several programmes under the name of Pál Kézdi. Among others, he wrote serials about Stalinism, the Constitution of the USA, neo-conservatism and on the history of Soviet Union. For five years, he edited the World Economy Magazine and the programme titled On the Western Road which analyzed the functioning of democratic institutions. In February 1989, the President of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty conferred to him the “Superior Performance Award” for his performance delivered in the year 1988, primarily for his 32-part serial about the Constitution of the USA.

Beginning from 1983, he took an active part in the activity of the Széchenyi Circle in Munich, where he delivered several presentations and lectures. Between 1993 and 1998 he was the Secretary of Széchenyi Circle. He was a regular author of the paper Nemzetőr (National Guard) published in Munich and of other Hungarian daily newspapers and weekly magazines. His studies were published in several periodicals. He is the deputy editor-in-chief of the “book newspaper” titled Leleplező (Unveiler) issued in Budapest since 1999. He regularly delivers lectures on the interrelation between human-centered society, democracy and monetary system. He is the founding member of the federation Összefogás a Fennmaradásért Szövetség (Union for Survival) formed in 2000, the objectives of which are the preservation of Hungarian land, the creation of the conditions for a “Garden-Hungary”, the restoration of Hungary’s economic and financial sovereignty, the achievement of the participation democracy, the extension of the powers of the referendum as well as the necessity of treating the money as the public institution of basic importance of the nation.

His book titled Why Did the Three Kennedys Have To Die? was published in 2002. It was followed, in the same year, by the first volume of the Usury Civilization and then, in 2003, by the second and third volumes. The three-volume Usury Civilization was already sold in several editions.

In 2004, his book titled Consciousness Modification was issued, which calls the attention to the dangers of brain manipulation. The process of the creation of a world order controlled from a single centre is analyzed in his collected studies titled New World Order? World Dead-End. In 2005, his book titled 1956 – The Third Way of the Hungarians was published, in which he looks for a way out from the dead-ends of the Communism and of the money rule. His book published also in 2005, titled The Dictatorship of the Money points out what advantages the restoration of the public money system might bring over.

In his book titled World Democratorship published in 2006, the author presents in detail how the global gaining ground of the world democratorship system was made possible by the aggressive spreading of the credit money monopoly.

In 2007, in his work titled Orwellia, he analyzed thoroughly the real superpower of our century, the money power, the most powerful ruling group in the world.

In his book titled The Human-Centered World Order, he analyzes in detail how the malign and detrimental globalism can be substituted by the benign and useful globalism serving the interests of the whole mankind, the human-centered world order.

His 2008 book, the Turbulence, is about the destructive turbulence of the anti-life world forces, primarily of the unlimited money power, in which the mankind fights its life-and-death struggle for survival.

The Change of Era issued in 2009 is a recommendation for the whole mankind concerning how a change of era, the new historical era of the harmonic world order can be achieved with solidarity.

In 2010, in his book titled The Dark Modern Age, he summarized his views on the world elite and its legal predecessors, which played a decisive role in the creation of the money rule relationships of the Dark Modern Age, and on how it is possible to get out of Dark Modern Age with the creation of a harmonic world order.

His book issued in 2011 under the title The Chosen Ones (Semitism – Separatism and Double Measure) contains, in the form of a collection, the previously already appeared writings, which are connected by the common problem: the analysis of the relationship between humanity and Jewry.

In 2012, he asked the question that touches everybody: Whose is the Hungarian State? Does it belong to the money cartel and its network or to the national government representing the interests of the Hungarian nation, from the common will of the overwhelming majority of the electors?

In his thought-rising book titled The Great Conspiracy (Whose Should 21st Century Be?), issued in 2013, he emphasizes that the whole of the money rule world order should be transformed radically so that the creators and beneficiaries of this system could not complete the great conspiracy successfully, the pouring into concrete and the making irreversible of the money rule world system controlled from a single centre.

His work titled Equals and More Equals (Semitism is an Organized Private Power), published in 2014, he tries to find an answer to the question: what serves the interests of the organized Jewry cooperating with the world elite?

In 2015 he published his book The Ukrainian Drama (The establishment of the common empire of the bear and of the dragon), written in a day by day synchronization of the events in progress.

His common volume titled Crisis and Reality, written together with László Bogár and István Varga, issued in 2009 by the Éghajlat Kiadó publishing house, analyzes the causes and consequences of the 2007-2008 financial world crisis.

Together with his three co-authors (Peter Sheldon, András Virág and Julius Mohácsi), János Drábik approaches the possibilities of avoiding the world war in the book issued in 2012 under the title World Peace vs. World War.

In their book titled Handbook of Government Overthrows, written together with Péter Tőke, they analyzed the “coloured” revolutions carried out in many places of the world, among them also in Eastern Europe.

Between 1997 and March 2000 he was a member of the BUOD presidium, the Federation of Hungarian Associations in Germany, in 1996 he was elected into the steering committee of the MVSZ (World Federation of Hungarians), where he represented the Hungarians living in South Germany. In the 1998 parliamentary elections he was the candidate of the KDNP (Christian Democrat People’s Party) in the election district nr. 1 of Budapest. Since 2004, he is taking part in the activity of the presidency of a civil organization, the Hungarian National Committee, which strives at the restoration of the force of the Hungarian historical Constitution. Since 2012, he is the Chairman of the Strategic Committee of the MVSZ and of the “St László” Academy of Hungarology, operating also within the MVSZ. He holds spring and autumn series of lectures at the MVSZ since 2011.

On 21st February 2015, the General Assembly of the National Trianon Society elected János Drábik the Chairman of the NTS. He regularly appears in the programmes of the Echo TV. The Fix TV broadcasts a new programme with him every Tuesday, in which he exposes his opinion on current historical and sociopolitical issues. He appears on such local TVs as Komló Média, VNTV, McKenzye TV and Hun TV. His official webpage is www.drabikjanosblog.wordpress.com, where his writings can be found and his lectures can be listened to. His FB profile is: Facebook.com/drabikjanos.

He is married, his wife is a chemist doctor, patent agent.



It is important to understand the wielding of power in such a period when those people are continuously attacked who, setting their eyes on the possibilities of the future, try to find new ways not only for their people, state, but also for Europe, for the whole mankind. Both by countries and globally, the power is exerted jointly by two powers: the organized public power and the organized private power. These two powers not only compete with each other, but also cooperate, because they are dependent on each other.

Even in the representation and participation democracy, the organized public power serves the public interest and public welfare, as well as represents the public will and the social truth based on the principle of equality. In the case of public power, the emphasis is on the society as a community which represents an organic unity. If this system works well, the individual interest will be subordinated to the public interest. The organized public power tries to assure the equality of chances within the framework of the participation and merit democracy, and, theoretically, even in our days it works on the basis of the separation of power branches described by Montesquieu: namely that the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers not only mutually complete, but also control and keep in balance each other.

The organized private power gives priority to the individual and to the private power against the interests of the community, and emphasizes the individual rights of the persons against the collective rights of the community. Instead of the public welfare, it favours the individual prosperity, the achievement of the self-interest and even the selfishness, making by this possible the appearance of the extreme property relations and the differences of power based on them.

We have set forward all these to make it unambiguous what the liberal democracy means today. Historically, liberalism meant such a new system of ideas and norms which regarded the perpetual change inevitable. This system of ideas appeared as a reaction to the conservatism and propagated the conscious acceptance and undertaking of modernism. Its representatives strived at influencing all the institutions of the society and state with their views, relieving them of the reminiscences of irrationalism. The followers of the classical liberalism considered progress indispensable, but also knew that, so that history should follow its own natural course, reforms are continuously needed either. In essence, the socialists wanted the same as the liberals, but they wanted to speed up the accomplishment of the programme of the liberalism with the revolutions.

The essence of modernism was that the change should be the normal state. Nevertheless, the conservatives said that, if exaggerated, it can be dangerous and we must defend ourselves against it. The liberals were who emphasized that everything must be done for the sake of the maximal development of the human freedom. In turn, the socialists said that this process should be accelerated even with a revolution, and the mere freedom is not enough, also the social justice is necessary. All the mentioned three ideologies wanted to help the people to reach elevation, welfare and happiness, if possible, as reasonably as possible. The problem was that they were not able to tell who the people was. According to the liberals, the people is the totality of individuals endowed with self-determination rights. Anyway, it was difficult for them to determine who can be regarded an autonomous individual, a person who is in free command of himself. (For instance, the children, the old, the insane, the unemployed, the foreigners and the criminals were considered to be persons with restricted disposing capacity, and even women did not possess equal rights with men for a long time.)

If we admit that all socially responsible individuals can exert their sovereign rights, the problem still arises: where is the boundary, so that the exertion of an individual’s sovereign rights should not infirm the exertion of another individual’s rights? The relation to the public power and the state led to the fact that, after 1848, the liberals and the conservatives became reconciled, because they realized that they were standing on the basis of the same private property, while the socialists insist on the public property. The conservatives and socialists also got closer to each other, since they both emphasize the collective interests against the individualism. And so the social-liberalism or liberal-socialism was born.

The majority of liberal parties fell off, but the operating big parties in essence achieved a liberal programme. We could witness that liberalism gained ground in the whole of the 20th century. The year 1989, which apparently brought the total victory of liberalism, was in fact the beginning of the global decay of liberalism, since its disintegration was already under way, and then the post-liberal era gradually took shape. In 1989, the traditional liberalism overwon itself, and degenerated into an extremist neo-liberalism. The economy based on equality of chances and competition, i.e. the productive economy satisfying the needs and the social market economy was substituted by the crematistics, as well as the money economy and the money rule system giving priority to the turnover, the consumption and the speculation with money. In this new system the goal is to make more and more money from money. The organized private power controlling as an owner the welfare state based on social justice and the money system turned the state into a servicing institution. This “slimmed” servicing state became the servant of the global organized private power – the money rule world elite and its empire. The money rule world elite speeded up the integration of the sovereign national states into supra-state structures, and started the creation of the New World Order and global government controlled from a single centre.

The validity of liberalism, as the ideology of the money rule world economy and of the organized private power, became doubtful already in 1968, following the student revolts sweeping over the western world. This system of ideas, which up to then stood in the centre of the social and technical modernization, gradually lost its credit. And, since 1989, it was definitely proved that the economic and social liberalism is not an efficient political ideology any more. Its place was taken by the world system of globalism, the new version of the total rule. This is the neo-liberal dictatorship of the money and corporation oligarchy, using the emptied forms of the alibi-democracy and hiding in the faceless money relations. The revolting youth of 1968 denied that world system, which divided the society into an interest-collecting minority not producing value and a majority in a depending situation. The majority works for the money-wealthy minority in the form of interest payment, for starvation wages or for nothing. So 1968 shook liberalism as the dominant ideology in its bases.

The classical liberalism, the liberality of 19th century, historically meant the struggle against the absolute sovereign and the authoritarian systems, for the sake of gaining individual human rights and political freedoms. In our days, these classical liberal values are already prevailing in all types of democracy, should they be conservative, national, Christian or socialist and social-democratic.

Today we already live in a post-liberalist era, since those national states which consider themselves liberal democracies are in fact under the rule of the organized private power. Even in the developed countries of the trans-Atlantic area, the money rule world elite, making up 1% of the population, detains such an enormous financial and wealth superiority, that the public power, which is supposed to represent the necessities, interests and values of 99% of the society, is not able to fulfil this duty any more. Even a democratically legitimized government can only accomplish its obligations if it is able to balance the enormous financial and economic superiority of the organized private power with due material basis, financial resources and public property.

Nevertheless, even in the developed industrial countries, the national state, as the representative of public power, does not have enough force to resist the overweight of the organized private power. Therefore, today the liberalism does not mean the classical human rights and political freedoms any more, but assures for the 1% detaining money wealth the liberty of unlimited abuse of the freedom of the 99%. Those who are worried now for the liberal democracy, in fact speak in defence of the unlimited freedom of the money rule elite. Liberty, due to everybody, has never been identical with the freedom of abuse, with the decadent liberalism of the super-rich.

The extreme property relations of the post-liberal period make it possible for the global elite to convert its financial and economic superiority obtained in certain countries into political decisions with the most various techniques of corruption, since the representatives of the public power are not able to resist the financial and economic superiority of the organized private power. Therefore, who calls to account, e.g. the head of the Hungarian government for the denial of the liberal ideal of the state, should first determine whose freedom he means when referring to liberalism: the freedom of those who perform value-creating work or to the unlimited freedom of the money rule elite.

The current alibi-democracy means today the undisturbed exertion of the organized private power, namely so that neither the legitimate governments leaning on people’s sovereignty could limit the private power, with reference to the public interest and public welfare. The organized private power forced the European Union onto the European national states and transformed it into a supra-state imperial structure in which the exertion of power was given decisively to the bureaucrats selected and put in position by the money rule world elite, so that it could possibly enforce even its most selfish particular interests without any limitations.

That part of the European press, which, pushing a button, opened assault fire on a charismatic European politician, because he had prodigal ideas about how could Europe get out of the current crisis caused by the decadent liberalism, in fact proved that this pseudo-liberal press has nothing to do with the freedom of speech any more. These controlled opinion-formers blame the Hungarian prime minister for becoming from a classical liberal a national-conservative populist, and, under his leadership, Hungary changed into a “non-democracy”. These servants of the organized private power found it deleterious that the policy of the Hungarian prime minister is based on the nation, the church, the cultural heritage, the “father-mother-child” family model and the more severe actions against criminals. To this they added that during the government of Viktor Orbán the homeless were “criminalized” and a shifting toward right occurred in the respect of immigration and globalization. In Hungary former governor Miklós Horthy “was rehabilitated” recently and such authors from the 1940-ies as József Nyirő became part of the school curriculum. The governing Fidesz-KDNP coalition founded several such history institutions like e.g. the Veritas, at the head of which they appointed “revisionist” historians.

These hypocrite defenders of the organized private power ask the question: how long can a EU member state go in such an antidemocratic direction? They blame Viktor Orbán for daring to say in Transylvania in the end of July 2014 that he was doubtful about the liberal democracy and, instead, he considered China, Russia and Turkey such states which can show an example for the European states struggling with the crisis.

Even such a mouth-piece of the money rule world elite as the Wall Street Journal, stated in its July 31st 2014 issue that a slow transition is just taking place in Hungary toward the soft authoritarian state establishment. Viktor Orbán’s statement on “illiberalism” reminds us that free markets and free societies require a powerful defence. The authoritarians are always on the watch for using the weak points of the democracy. Finally, the newspaper of the international money world calls Europe to prove what freedom is capable of, by restarting its economy in crisis. And asked the American president to raise his word in the defence of the system of ideals of liberalism.

The Washington Post also dealt with Viktor Orbán’s speech, asserting that the Hungarian prime minister sets up Putin’s Russia as a model. Following the Russian president’s footsteps, he wants to introduce such a system the main elements of which are the nationalism, the religion, the conservative social view, the state capitalism and the hegemony of the government over the mass media.

We remind you all these in order to illustrate how the organized private power controls the world, hiding behind the curtain of liberal democracy. We could see that the competent of the global media owned by the money rule world elite did nothing else but listed the commonplace grievances of the organized private power and urged them to be redressed.

The organized private power operates as a multinational giant corporation embracing the whole world. The main decisions are made by the owners, the altogether 300 super-rich banker dynasties, as it is shown in detail in David Rothkopf’s work titled Superclass. The execution of the owners’ decision is controlled by the members of the board of directors. It includes, among others, the presidents or prime ministers of the bigger states, the heads of the big international organizations, as well as the leaders of the UNO, the World Trade Organization, the NATO, the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Basel-based Bank of International Settlements, the European Central Bank and of other similar organizations. The third level includes the managers who actually execute the owners’ decisions.

This hierarchical structure has nothing to do with the democracy. The organized private power even denies itself, because if it admitted its own existence, it could be called to account for its decisions and, in a given situation, it could even be removed. This money rule world elite – 1% of the mankind – exerts a selfish dictatorship over 99% of mankind for enforcing its own self-interest. Hiding behind the curtain of liberal democracy, the members of this elite are the more equals, while the remaining part of mankind ar only equals. It is a fact that most members of the super-rich banker dynasties are of Jewish origin or Talmudist-Kabbalist Jews. This book would like to inform the readers about what causes make the members of the money rule elite, even in our days, to apply the double standard, what world strategy follows the international money cartel, and what his vision is on the future of mankind.

Chosenness – the essence of Semitism

The religious chosenness

The chosenness can happen according to religious-ideological or genetic-ethnical principles and, finally, on the basis of the belonging to a closed community of interest. The mystic concept of the Chosen People occupies a central place in the Jewish tradition and liturgy. Therefore, the religion-based chosenness can be regarded as a determining concept of Judaism or Semitism. It has also remained, however, up to the present day, the central unspoken and explosive psychological, historical, and theological problem at the heart of Jewish-Gentile relations. The struggle over the status of the chosen was one of the driving forces in the history of Jewish relations with the world and continues to be so even today. The chosenness is one of the determining elements of the contemporary anti-Semitism, the theological support of millions for the state of Israel, and the current Middle East conflict over the Land of Israel and the “chosen city” of Jerusalem.

Large parts of the teachings of both Christianity and Islam are governed by the supersessionist theory, the claim that they have replaced the Jews as the Chosen People with spiritually chosen communities, namely the Christians and Muslims. The Catholic and many Protestant churches have also modified their doctrines on the displacement of the Jews with reinterpretations of its theological significance. Also the Christian Zionists had to revise their theology on chosenness to facilitate, in this way, their active political support for the state of Israel. Nevertheless, the Islam was unable to reverse or reform its displacement theology according to which this decorous status of the Chosen People is not due to the Jewish people, but to the followers of the Islam. This presents a major theological barrier to conflict resolution in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Chosenness continues to play a major role in current interfaith relations. The idea of the chosenness of the Jews occupies a special central place in the other two monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam, states Avi Beker, adding that the followers of these two monotheistic religions have also appropriated the title of God’s Chosen People to themselves.

For the Jews, chosenness does not imply hegemony over other nations, nor does it seek to impose the Torah (the Hebrew Bible) on other peoples. Chosenness implies mostly moral distinctiveness and burden but not preeminence and privileges – emphasizes Beker in his work titled The Contemporary Rivalry over the Chosen People: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives, dated 16th November 2008 on his website (http://www.jcpa.org).

From a religious and historical standpoint it can be argued that anti-Semitism is an antithetical, negative way to prove the uniqueness of the Jews’ chosenness. In any case it is clear that attempts by Jews to distance themselves from the idea or outright reject it have not changed the perception. As the American sociologist Daniel Bell put it in 1946: “The Jews are a chosen people, if not by God, then by the rest of the world.” Some critics argue that the Jews invented their theory of chosenness. However, this “invention” gave birth to two other monotheistic religions, which are practiced by billions. The concept of chosenness is at the heart of the mystery of Jewish existence.

Shahid Alam, Professor of the Northeastern University of Boston, is also on the opinion that no idea has played a more seminal role in the recent history of Jewish and Christian Zionism than the Jewish doctrine of divine election or chosenness (Chosenness and Israeli Exceptionalism, 21st May 2007). Since this doctrine is the cornerstone of Zionism, divine sanction for Jewish uniqueness has been inseparable from Israeli exceptionalism and Israeli history.

At first, political Zionism had little to recommend itself aside from the mythic allure of the Promised Land. Most Jews greeted the project alternatively with consternation or derision. They could instantly sense that the creation of a Jewish state would give an impetus to anti-Semitism in Europe. The project was considered by most of them as a fantastic utopia with little chance of success. The success of the Zionist plan required firstly persuading Jews to abandon their homes in Europe for the hazards of colonizing a backward land. Secondly, wresting Palestine from its Ottoman sovereign. And, thirdly, somehow making the Palestinians disappear. Some very real hurdles blocked each of these steps. In addition, there was another hitch. The political Zionists did not have the religious sanction to work for Jewish restoration to Palestine. Jews had long believed that this would be the work of the Jewish Messiah as part of God’s plan for the culmination of history.

Many had come to invest the return to Zion with symbolic meaning that could be pursued even in exile. Overcoming these theological objections would not be easy. The Zionists, some of whom were already secular persons, not exerting their religion, regarded these objections as minor inconveniences. The vision of reconstituting Jewish power was extremely attractive. It revived Jewish memories of Davidic splendor. It inspired hopes of establishing Jewish power in the Middle East on a scale that their ancestors could not attain in ancient times. Zionism offered a challenge to create a new world, to change a destiny of ‘exile’ into which Jews had been trapped for close to two millennia. Once the moral implications of their plan became clearer, the Zionists would again find the doctrine of Jewish chosenness useful.

In connection with all this, Nahum Goldmann, who was the leader of the Jewish World Congress for many years, wrote the following: “One need only imagine what would happen in the world, if all the peoples who lost their states centuries or millennia ago were to reclaim their land.”

Shahid Alam added to all this that, in fact, Goldmann asked how were the Zionists going to justify the “theft” of Palestinian land? One argument claimed that since the Palestinians were not a “people” presumably, because they were not rulers over Palestine, they had no juridical rights over their lands. Another, more cleverly argued that most of the Arabs living in Palestine at the end of the British mandate were not natives there. They were recent immigrants from neighboring Arab countries, attracted by the growing demand for labor induced by Jewish colonization.

There is also a third argument. It contended that Palestine was “empty”, that the Palestinians simply did not exist. However, it was the theological doctrine of chosenness that would most convincingly settle the morality of Zionist claims to Palestine. The Zionists would have little difficulty convincing their Jewish and Christian audiences. The only thing that mattered at that time was that this was no “theft”. It was widely believed by populations raised on Biblical myths that God had promised Palestine to the Jews as their eternal inheritance. Since Jewish ownership rights were divinely ordained, they could not be annulled by the absence of the owners. In other words, Zionism was not a colonial movement to expropriate the natives. Zionism was a “messianic” movement to restore Palestine to its divinely appointed Jewish owners. In this way, the European Jews who arrived in Palestine could not be accused of stealing their lands, as the Jewish National Fund claims, they were only “redeeming” lands which had had always been theirs.

The sacred history of the Jews supported Zionist plans on another important matter. The Zionist plans for a Jewish state required a Jewish majority in Palestine, and preferably a territory cleansed of its native inhabitants. At first, the Zionist thinkers gave little thought to the Palestinian presence. They assumed that the Palestinians were Bedouins, temporary sojourners on this territory, without any love for their land or homes. Therefore they could be easily persuaded to move on. When the Palestinian resistance dashed these hopes, the Zionists quickly made plans to evict them from their lands by force of arms.

In 1948 the Zionists nearly implemented their totalitarian vision when they expelled some 800,000 Palestinians, levelled their towns and villages, and made sure that they would never return to their homes in the Jewish state of Israel. This fact may have been troubling to some, but Zionists steeped in Jewish sacred history knew that their Lord had urged even more radical measures when their ancestors were taking possession of Canaan.

The theology of chosenness offered also another advantage. It did not limit Zionist ambitions to Palestine alone. The Lord’s promise was not restricted to Canaan. In a few more generous verses, this theology had expanded the Jewish inheritance to include all the lands between the Nile and Euphrates, that is the Eretz Israel. With present-day borders, this expansive Israeli empire would include Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and perhaps even other territories. If the Zionists could successfully use the Bible to claim Palestine, they could invoke the same divine authority to claim the rest of the Arab Middle East as well. In the middle of the Suez War in 1956, Ben-Gurion told the Knesset that the real reason for the Suez War was “the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon” to its Biblical borders. At this point in his speech, almost every Knesset member spontaneously rose and sang the Israeli national anthem.

The doctrine of election did not merely set the Jews apart from other nations; it also set them above other nations. Over time, this has encouraged racist tendencies. Since the Jews were the chosen instruments of God’s intervention on earth, this was interpreted by some Jewish thinkers to mean that Jews were not subject to the laws of nature and society. In other words, as long as the Jews believed that they were acting as instruments of God’s will, they did not have to follow the laws of gentile nations. As Israelis have moved to the religious right. This shift was propelled by the rationale and experience of Zionism itself. Zionist advocates have shown an increasing willingness to justify their human rights abuses as a Jewish prerogative. As Zionist plans continued to be challenged by their victims, the “chosen people” slowly but surely took on the hues of a “master race”. They began to imagine that they have the power to legitimize their actions by merely willing them into existence. (Above we have summarized the ideas of Shahid Alam.)

This topic sphere is seen in a different way by Avi Beker, who was born in 1951 in Tel-Aviv and reached the rank of captain in the Israeli army. After graduating from the University of Tel-Aviv, he gained a PhD degree in political science at the University of New York. Between 2002-2003, he was the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress, and previously he was heading the office in Israel of the World Jewish Congress. According to him, no theme in the Hebrew Bible is more fundamental than that of the Covenant between God and Israel and the idea that the Jews have responded to that call. The Old Testament is clear in the assertion that the Jews were chosen by God to be His own beloved treasure, His firstborn son. In Moses’ farewell address the Children of Israel are told that they were selected not because of their power or numbers but because God loves them.

Some Jewish rabbis and sages argue that the Jews did not receive their chosen role out of their free will but rather were compelled by God. Nevertheless, this view stands in sharp contrast to the very popular evaluation. Some Jewish thinkers who have rejected the concept resorted to similar ideas that emphasized Jewish uniqueness or separateness. Baruch Spinoza, who had rebelled against the Jewish religious authorities in Amsterdam, rejected the traditional chosen doctrine because it implies Jewish superiority. But he admitted even himself that Jews had maintained their mystical existence because of their separate religious rules.

Reform Judaism and chosenness

Spinoza also predicted that the Jews would once again establish their independent state and then “God will again choose them”. In the Conservative movement within the Jewish community chosenness is regarded as a “spiritual act,” in which Israel was chosen by God as a “spiritual order” to serve as a “holy people” between the rest of mankind and God. In 1885, the Reform Judaism movement in America adopted the Pittsburgh Platform, declaring that they did not wish to be a nation at all and thus reinterpreting the concept of chosenness as part of a moral mission to help the world. This document, adopted also by the American Hebrew Congregation (UAHC), calls to reject those religious rules which do not have moral, but ritual content. They regarded such the strict observation of the Jewish eating rules. In modern times, these rituals abstract the attention from the important ethical points.

At the Pittsburgh convention, the participants reinforced the belief in God’s existence, and qualified the experiencing “the indwelling of God in man.” to be a universal endeavour present in all religions. In this vein, the Pittsburgh Platform also calls for a recognition of the inherent worth of Christianity and Islam, although it still holds that Judaism was the “highest conception of the God-idea”. The writer of the present lines adds to this that he has read in the works of many Jewish authors that the God of the Old Testament is a separate tribal God of the Jews, which contradicts the concept that He is, at the same time, the universal God of all human beings. This contradiction appears also in the fact that the position in this respect of the three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – differs from each other. The unique God of Christianity and of the Islam is a universal God, the universal God of all mankind.

Instead of a nation, the already mentioned Pittsburgh Platform defines Jews in the modern world as a religious community within a pluralistic, receiving nation. For this reason, there was an explicit rejection of Zionism, at least in America, since the participants to the meeting felt that the Jews were at home in America. But, as we have already referred to it, the platform seems to acknowledge the concept of Jewish chosenness accepting in the Bible “the consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God”.

The adoption of the Pittsburgh Platform only intensified the debate within American Judaism, since the leading radical Reformers alienated the more moderate reformers who, in a liberal way, but believed in a compromise approach to Halakha in the belief that it would better maintain Jewish continuity. (Halakha is the collective body of Jewish religious laws, a comprehensive guide to all aspects of human life, both corporeal and spiritual, as well as the relations between man and man, as well as between man and God. Halakha includes the measure-giving final decisions, as well as the solution of the most specific problems. Halakha deals with the Biblical rules and commandments derived from the Written and Oral Torah, but comprises the Rabbinic laws and legislation, as well as the religious court decisions. The word Halakha is often translated as “the path” or “the way of walking”. It primarily deals with the questions of the practice and of legal regulation, and puts the stress on action.)

The debates about Zionism continued within Reform Judaism. The Union for Reform Judaism adopted in 1937 the so-called Columbus Platform, which included a more nuanced endorsement of Zionism, noting:

“In all lands where our people live, they assume and seek to share loyally the full duties and responsibilities of citizenship and to create seats of Jewish knowledge and religion. In the rehabilitation of Palestine, the land hallowed by memories and hopes, we behold the promise of renewed life for many of our brethren. We affirm the obligation of all Jewry to aid in its upbuilding as a Jewish homeland by endeavoring to make it not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life.”

The Union’s new 1999 “Statement of Principles for Reform Judaism” was also called the Pittsburgh Platform. It called for “renewed attention” to “sacred obligations,” of which it mentioned the observance of holidays and Shabbat, study of Torah and prayer, and the Hebrew language. The statement endorsed aliyah, that is immigration into Israel for the first time. The statement notes differences within Israel and Reform Judaism, concerning competing concepts of Medinat Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael. The latter stands for Greater Israel, which, according to references in the Bible, covers territories between the Nile and Euphrates. Reform still holds that Halacha is not binding and has since embraced other concepts like patrilineal descent.

Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of the Reconstructionist movement, proposed that Judaism should reject, in his words, the “anachronistic” and “arrogant” concept of the Chosen People, which perpetrated “race or national superiority”. Kaplan’s ideas on chosenness did not receive much support among American Jewry. Namely, Kaplan suggested the retaining of the uniqueness of Judaism by focusing on another aspect of chosenness. This another aspect was Zionism and the support for an independent Jewish state in the ancestral homeland. The Reform movement rejected or vacillated on this particular aspect of chosenness. In spite of this, Kaplan became a spokesperson and ideologist for American mainstream Zionism well before Israel’s establishment. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 21st century, it seems that the Kaplanian position on the chosen people might not find enough followers.

Yosef Haim Brenner, an influential writer of socialist Zionism and the kibbutz movement, also tried to escape the fate of chosenness so that Israel should be a “normal” people and nation, like the others. Other leaders of the Zionist Labor movement and founding fathers of the state, such as Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, promoted the chosenness concept on a secular and not on a religious basis. Ben-Gurion, who often used the term “chosen”, pointed out that the Covenant between God and the Jews is an original concept making the two parties equal. There was a similar universal Covenant between God and Noah and then came the Covenant between God and Abraham, which led to the Covenant with the Children of Israel given on Mount Sinai. In Ben-Gurion’s view, the role of the Jews according to the Bible relates not only to crucial human values of justice, truth, peace, and fraternity but also to Isaiah’s declared mission of being a “Light unto the Nations”.

There are observers (such as the Irish Conor Cruise O’Brien) who are convinced that even secular Zionists were strongly driven by the acceptance of the mysterious “chosen” factor. Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, and others, though not religiously observant “in the wider sense…could not be anything else but very religious Jews indeed.” Their “imaginations were saturated in the Bible” and they maintained a “burning faith in the restoration of the Chosen People to the Promised Land.”

Christianity’s relationship with Judaism has long been governed by the already mentioned supersessionist theory. At the end of the first century, St. Paul started to propagate the teachings concerning the replacement of the Jews. He claimed that the followers of Jesus replaced the Jews as the “true Israel”, the Chosen People. Paul, who is for all practical purposes the founder of Christianity, made the historic decision to turn the new faith away from its Jewish origins along with shifting the guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. This theme, i.e. making the Jews responsible for the death of Jesus caused vilifications against Jewish communities several times in Europe. The First Crusade, as a “holy war”, was started in 1095 by the Christians, the “race beloved and chosen by God” against the pagans. Later on, the Spanish expulsing the Jews from Spain claimed to be the “chosen”. In the 20th century, the German National Socialists propagated that the Aryans were the chosen race.

Vatican II, the gathering in 1965 confronted the charge against the Jews as the killers of Christ and removed the collective blood guilt from “the Jews of today” and in ancient times. The gathering’s pronouncement allowed the recognition by the Catholic Church of the Jews as “The Chosen People”. This led later to Pope John Paul II’s declaration, during his historic 1986 visit to the Synagogue of Rome, that “The Jews are our elder brother”. This doctrinal change would later allow the Vatican to cross the theological barrier that required the Jews to remain dispersed, humiliated, and without national sovereignty. Nevertheless, these modifications of the Catholic doctrine have greatly contributed to a more harmonious relationship with the Jews, but the obsession with Jewish chosenness is still very strong. The basic assertion that Christianity has replaced Judaism as the chosen religion is still dominant in Catholic theology. The Dominus Iesus document, written in 2000 by Pope Benedict XVI, stressed a desire “for the instant in which Israel will say yes to Christ”.

Early in 2008 the Vatican decided to revive the traditional Latin prayer for the conversion of the Jews which was removed in 1969. In another act, in the summer of 2008, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decided to delete from the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults the sentence saying that “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them”. All this again shows how difficult it is for the Catholic Church to accept the historic role of the Jews as the chosen “elder brother”.

In his above already quoted study, Avi Beker also mentions that Martin Luther, who broke away from Catholicism in the mid-sixteenth century to create the Protestant Church, sent cordial and welcoming messages to the Jews. He expected that they would convert to his purified form of Christianity. After their refusal he launched his vicious campaign of anti-Semitism, arguing that they were no longer the Chosen People and were instead “the Devil’s people”, adding that the Jews were “base, whoring…that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth”. Luther’s anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of anti-Semitism in Germany, and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the National Socialists’ attacks on Jews.

Avi Beker sees that today various Protestant churches in Europe and America are continuing to maintain ambiguous statements on the Jews’ chosenness. Not all groups stemming from the Protestant Reformation have adopted the anti-Jewish teachings of Martin Luther. For instance, in Britain some groups regarded themselves as the Chosen People and “the New Israel” but at the same time viewed the Jews’ return to their homeland in Palestine as a critical event in preparing and hastening the prophetic process culminating in the second coming of Jesus.

Christian Zionists were very much involved in inspiring, acting, and lobbying for the restoration of the Jews in their historical Promised Land. A large number of American Protestant churches (some in Europe as well) have substantially adopted the Christian Zionist evangelical theology that represents an enormous change in modern history and in the doctrine of Christian redemption. Evangelicals still believe in their own chosenness and attach great importance to their duty to spread their Christian values through the world, at the same time, however, they no longer subscribe to the age-old Christian doctrine that refuses to recognize the viable existence of the Jewish people and, particularly, its chosen status. These churches, which today represent an important political force, believe that the Jews continue to be favored as God’s people, and some of them even renounce supersessionism, namely that, with the apparition of Christianity, the “physical Israel” was replaced by the “spiritual Israel”, and affirm that the Jews have a valid way to find God within their own faith.

The Islam and the chosenness of the Jews


Islam faced a similar theological need to explain away Jewish “chosenness”, but, unlike Christianity, the Muslim displacement theory does not base itself on being the “New Israel”. Instead, it recasts the Jewish prophets as Muslims by creating a direct link with Ishmael, the son of Abraham, the “first Muslim” according to the Qur’an. As the early Christians had done before him, Muhammad started his campaign with a conscious effort to bring the Jews within the fold of Islam. Muhammad accepted the Jewish God and prophets and many Jewish practices. In the Qur’an Muhammad refers to the Jews as the “Chosen People” and to the Land of Israel as their “Promised Land”. The Qur’an also acknowledges the Jews’ covenant with God. In particular it exhorts the Children of Israel regarding the Land of Israel, telling them to “dwell securely in the Promised Land”. Nevertheless, this and similar comments about the Jews and their land are nowhere to be found in the rhetoric of today’s Muslim or Arab leaders.

Similar to Luther, after realizing that the Jews were not going to join his new version of Judaism, Muhammad proceeded to establish a separate religion. From that point on relations with his Jewish neighbours deteriorated quickly, and he declared that Mecca was the holy city, not Jerusalem, In 628 CE Muhammad attacked the Jewish tribes, dispossessing, enslaving and exiling them. The Qur’an presents the Muslim doctrine of supersession, and the commentators explain that Islam remedies “the backsliding of the Jews and Christians from their pure religions to which the coping stone was placed by Islam”. In this way, the only God, Allah, considers His Chosen People the followers of Islam instead of the Jews. Vilifying or killing Jews is a recurring motif in Muslim holy texts, and it is very much related to the Islamic version of supersessionism. The Qur’an repeatedly accuses the Jews of falsehood, distortion, and of being “corrupters of the scriptures.” It argues that this is why the Jews did not deserve to be the Chosen People.

A still living oral tradition from Muhammad, for example, contends that the rivalry with the Jews will continue until the end of days. With their “displacement” theology, which claims that Islam has replaced the chosen Jews, Muslims find it even more confusing and irritating to watch the return of the Jews to their homeland, and even worse, their victories over Arab armies. The Saudi government blames the Jews in its official publications for deceiving the world into thinking that “they are the chosen people and that God wants them to once more take possession of Palestine, the promised land”.

A 2004 article in the Saudi armed-forces journal refers to the “Jewish sense of superiority in the world” and quotes Jewish leaders who claim that “we are the ones who invented the story of a ‘chosen people’ and we established ourselves as saviors of the world”.

There are plenty of publications on Jewish history and many theories about Judaism, Semitism and anti-Semitism. The concept of chosenness helps tie together the mystery of Jewish existence with the perplexity of Semitism and anti-Semitism. Historians have always grappled with the unique story of the continued existence of the Jews as individuals and communities despite their wide dispersion, lack of sovereignty, strong forces of assimilation, and so much violent hatred. Economic, sociological, and political theories are insufficient and even the scapegoat theory cannot explain why the Jews are so often the scapegoats even in places where there are no Jews.

Inquiry and inspection of the religious background is critical. Not because all people are religious but because almost all anti-Semites employ myths and prejudices that have strong religious roots. The mystery of the Jewish existence goes back to the very roots of Christian and Muslim belief and dogma. The chosen doctrine is critical for both Christianity and Islam, and surprisingly it is also central for many nonobservant Jews.

Disraeli and the chosenness of the Jews

Benjamin Disraeli was prime minister of Great Britain during the second half of the nineteenth century, a converted Jew baptized by his father right before his bar mitzvah. In his many books and speeches he dealt with the chosenness. Disraeli expressed strong views about the Jews, the Chosen People, whose existence he regarded as “a miracle; alone of the ancient races”. Disraeli was a prolific writer of novels, and several of their heroes are Jews who are admired spokespersons on behalf of the Chosen People.

One of these, Sidonia, is a super-rich Jewish banker and, according to critics, an idealized version of Rothschild, embodying the Jewish banker, who became a concept. The real model, Baron Lionel de Rothschild was a close friend of Disraeli. Disraeli supported him in the political struggle to change the law that did not allow Jews to be elected to Parliament. In his novels, Disraeli did not hesitate to include among his heroes individuals such as Rothschild whom, on the other hand, anti-Semites hated in fact. In his novel titled Coningsby, published in 1844, Disraeli processes the political struggles of England in the 1930s. The novel presents the life-path of Henry Coningsby, grandson of an overwealthy Lord Monmouth. Due to his political views, Coningsby is disinherited by his family, but even without money, with a hard work, he wins himself a name as an excellent lawyer. Finally he will be elected a member of the British Parliament.

At one point in his novel, Disraeli puts in the mouth of Sidonia, friend of Coningsby, what is clearly the link between the privileged role of the Chosen and anti-Semitism:

“Favored by nature and by nature’s God, we produced the lyre of David; we gave you Isaiah and Ezekiel…. Favored by nature we still remain, but in exact proportion as we have been favored by nature, so we have been persecuted by Man…. We have endured fifteen hundred years of supranational slavery…. The Hebrew child has entered adolescence only to learn that he was the pariah of that ungrateful Europe that owes to him the best part of its laws, a fine portion of its literature, all its religion.”

The white race and the Jewish chosenness

If somebody considers himself to be “chosen”, that is superior to other people, this will necessarily lead to conflicts with his fellow human beings. This is related about in the “Mission Statement” of Matt Nuenke, to be found on his webpage (http://www.neoeugenics.net). Since 1994, Matt Nuenke undertook the defence of the western culture and of the white race. He read numerous academic books in this field, and summarized them briefly on his webpage. Up to now, he read a whole library of works, and he surrogated his thoughts of them. Nuenke conceives the Semitism and anti-Semitism as the self-defence struggle of the western culture and of the white race against the world strategy of the triumphant Semitism.

He starts from the idea that we, humans are very much like our primate ancestors. With our larger intelligent brains, we have acquired the ability to foresee our deaths as soon as we are able to understand life, at a very young age, knowing that we have a brief time to live, a time to be made the most of. Instead, we have turned back to our primitive instincts and succumbed to religion, false beliefs, and submission to dominance by others. The answer to this dilemma during most of this century, has been to try and change human culture, assuming it is infinitely malleable. All this led to the agony of communism and the shortcomings of egalitarian democracies. And in the rest of the world, despotism reigns under numerous doctrines, with little hope for the people subjected to the state’s propaganda.

Thus Matt Nuenke thinks that he must put forth the view that to change the human condition we must change the innate nature of humans, that is, we must encourage the breeding of people with a higher intellect, people better able to understand what motivates them and who can eventually revolt against the subjugation by the state or the controlling elite. In this way, we can confront both the organized public power and the organized private power, as well as with the narrow money rule elite controlling both of them.

To this, we can add that in the current money rule world order the main power belongs to the structures of the organized private power. Even within the conditions of the formal democracy, the organized public power, the state, is obliged to give priority to the public interest, because it owes political responsibility and has to step out in front of the electors regularly. The owners of the organized private power – the owners of the financial institutions and multinational firms – are not compelled to give account of how they exert their financial and economic power. They can unscrupulously follow their selfish, particular interests. This is why it is sanctimonious and hypocritical to blame and whip always the “dictatorship of the state” when the dictatorship of the organized private power prevails camouflaged, but much more effectively.

We agree with Nuenke that the understanding of innate human traits can be done efficiently through a better understanding of behavior genetics. But to promote the theory and practice of eugenics, it becomes necessary to begin with a political agenda to bring it about. It is important to understand that evolution occurs at the genetic, individual and group levels, has to do with advancing both individual eugenics and group eugenics. That is, it appears that the race-preserving and developing eugenics can only be advanced in a world where nations are free to advance their own interests without interference.

In connection with this, Nuenke mentions that, as a joint effect of the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and the developing New World Order, the peoples of the world, among them also the American people to which Nuenke belongs are on the brink of giving up national sovereignty for world totalitarianism. In this world order controlled from a single centre the world elite will dictate to the masses how to think and behave. For the sake of the self-defence of mankind, Nuenke advocates two primary future viable options for eugenics. One of them is a return to nationalism, the protection of the interests of a national collectivity, where, within national frames, different nations will compete, with the accomplishment of various social and scientific agendas. The goal of these is to raise their peoples to higher levels of intelligence, followed by other traits the population desires to promote, and/or, to increase group solidarity and practice eugenics without borders.

The second eugenics method has been practiced by Jews for thousands of years. Nuenke finds it can be a dangerous road to follow for it invariably leads to group conflict in the nations where Jews dominate. Therefore he wants to do primarily not with the technology of eugenics but with human nature and how the white race got into a detrimental situation can react as a competing group. The future will decide how severely will political forces try to fight eugenics and what group or nation will be the victor in the end. But a more highly evolved human will be the result and this process will continue unabated into the future. Nuenke here refers to Nietzsche who already predicted that the higher man (a kind of superman or Übermensch) is right around the corner waiting for their creator to begin the task. The generations of today are their creator and they are the created beings.

That who reviews the enormous literature processed by Nuenke, may ask why so many of his articles are intertwined with the Jewish theories and practices to eugenics. According to Nuenke, the purpose of all this is to call the attention on human behavior the need for racial consciousness.  The Jews are one of the few identifiable groups (actually, the Ashkenazi Jews specifically) who have practiced eugenics with tenacious success that has raised their intelligence to a remarkably high level, along with increasing group cohesiveness leading to extreme ethnocentrism or xenophobia. (Ethnocentrism is such an orientation where a people, a nation or a group of people considers its own language, culture, system of values to be natural, self-containing or even superior, while all that differs from them to be unnatural or inferior. Xenophobia refers to hate of strangers, to a morbid fear from those who speak a different language and have a different culture.)

Several issues arise from this successful achievement.  Because of the form of their genetic selection process, they have primarily developed their verbal skills, making them uniquely adept at manipulation, deception, propaganda, academics, the media, etc. This would not normally be a problem, except that they have managed with this verbal skill to control politics and national policy, while those with other skills have built the technological foundations of great nations in Europe and America.  That is, the Jewish contribution may not have been very great or even negative, as their accumulation of far greater wealth than any other ethnic group has to do with their abilities in manipulation of other people through the power of words rather than through constructing or building industry.  Skilled craftsmen and technicians are as important as lawyers, politicians, academics or journalists. The rewards for the value-creation activity have gone to the elite who have the power of the word over the skill of the craftsmen.

Furthermore, Jews have been at the forefront of promoting multiculturalism, diversity, globalism, etc. At the same time, they were trying to block nationalism for others, while embracing Zionism themselves, which also belongs among the nationalisms. If Jews could unite with white nationalists, it would be possible to cooperate together for a common goal to preserve each other’s genetic interests, instead of wasting time and energy fighting each other.  Therefore, Nuenke thinks that the Jewish influence in America is strictly political and the problems are caused by the Jewish Left, not the empirical Jewish Right. Many of the members of the Jewish Right reject multiculturalism and genetic assimilation, therefore Nuenke would embrace these Jews, those that are on the side of eugenics and human advancement.

From the East, an emerging nationalism can also be observed. It may be that a powerful eugenic program will take place in countries like Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, India, etc.  These Eastern cultures may be able to overcome the individualism and lack of solidarity found in the Christian West.  Christianity may only be the expression of a people who are creative and intelligent, but lack the concept of “the will to power” necessary to turn against destructive sentimentality that prevails in the West.  We have much to learn about what is genetic, and what is cultural.  But if Christian morality is made up of a genetic weakness then a new species of human will have to come from the East, or from a hybridization of East and West in order to survive.  The competition between groups for intellectual superiority will be the driving force of eugenics – and nationalism can be regarded as the formula for this friendly competition.

Nietzsche about the chosenness of the Jews

The always controversial German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is considered to be the representative of individualism and one of the forerunners of existentialism, together with the Danish Soren Kierkegaard and the German Arthur Schopenhauer. He strongly condemned Christianity, the socialist teachings and even Darwinism. He found the religion outworn and denied the right of the state to lead the society. Nietzsche was primarily the philosopher of the will and propagated the self-accomplishment of man. He was on a mission to uncover the fundamental flaws in Western society, to expose hypocrisy and moral corruption. He tried to undermine every aspect of degenerate modern society, since only by getting to the root of the problem, he thought, could we find our way out of the general decay.

According to Nietzsche, the sad state of modern life is a consequence of the overturning of classical values that occurred in the early post-Christian world.  These classic values – originating in ancient Greece and embraced by the Romans – emphasized strength, robustness, nobility, self-determination, and personal excellence.  These life-affirming values, the “master” or “aristocratic” values, were the foundation upon which the great civilizations of Athens and Rome were built. One consequence of this development was the powerful and expansive Roman Empire.  Rome conquered also Palestine by the year 60 b.c., and held that territory for over five hundred years, as long as the Western Empire existed.

Nietzsche claimed, the oppression felt by the Jews and early Christians grew to the point at which a new value system, the Judeo-Christian value system came into being. This was a kind of religious and ethical response to Roman domination.  The new system carried different emphases for the two groups, the Christians and the Jews.  For Jews the focus was on self-pity, ethnic cohesion, a thirst for revenge, an obsession with freedom, a hatred of the strong and powerful, completed with a desire to recover lost wealth. The Christians – through the figure of Jesus – emphasized the value of the down-trodden (“blessed are the meek”), had faith in God to bring justice, stressed the salvation in the afterlife, and pointed out love as a means for ameliorating earthly suffering.  Arising as it did out of the quasi-slavery imposed by the Romans,

Nietzsche deemed this collective Judeo-Christian response a “slave” or “priestly” morality. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 a.d., the master or aristocratic morality and values lost their social background and gradually collapsed with it.  As the only real competitor, slave morality rose to take its place as the dominant ethical system of the West and there it has remained for nearly two thousand years.  In this sense, Nietzsche says, the slave has defeated the master, and become the new master. But the actual outcome has been far from positive. In a period when, combined with booming populations and advancing technology, there now exists a distinctly modern form of the priestly mindset, one based on subservience, conformity, equality, pity, guilt, suffering, revenge, and self-hatred:  the herd morality.  According to Nietzsche, one could scarcely devise a lower conception of man.

And here the radical change of the order of values brings us to the question of the Jews.  Nietzsche’s position on the Jews is complex and frequently extremely polarized.  According to him, on the one hand, they are the embodiment and product of the despised slave morality. He thinks that the Jews owe their very success to the promotion and exploitation of this way of thinking.  On the other hand, they defeated or rather outlived Rome. Partly for this very reason they have been able to sustain themselves as a distinct ethnicity through the next millennia.  They proved to be hardened survivors, who preserved their ethnic communities relatively pure and learned how to succeed.

In an early work of him, Human, All Too Human (Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, 1878), Nietzsche shows evident sympathy with the suffering of the Jews:  “I would like to know how much one must excuse in the overall accounting of a people which, not without guilt on all our parts, has had the most sorrowful history of all peoples”.

In a brief moment of praise, Nietzsche hails the contributions of the Jews: they are the ones “to whom we owe the noblest human being (Jesus Christ), the purest philosopher (Baruch Spinoza), the mightiest book [the Bible J.D.] and the most effective moral code in the world.” 

The same passage, however, includes this observation:  “Every nation, every man has disagreeable, even dangerous characteristics; it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an exception”.  And there is no doubt that he is disagreeable with the Jews recklessly speculating at the stock exchange, especially in the mirror of that financial breakdown which took place in 2007 and 2008. These were followed by the bank bailouts, considered extremely repugnant and unjust, which put enormous burdens on taxpayers, but we can also mention such concomitant phenomenae like the ones which are connected to such names and frauds like Bernard Madoff and the financial scandal caused by him.

Nietzsche’s next book, Daybreak (Morgenröthe, 1881), offers conditional praise for the Jews based on their long history of exclusion, isolation, and persecution.  In section 205 he states: “As a consequence of this [history], the psychological and spiritual resources of the Jews today are extraordinary”. They are capable of the “coldest self-possession, … the subtlest outwitting and exploitation of chance and misfortune”.  Thus, mental acuity is of prime importance for them, since “They are so sure in their intellectual suppleness and shrewdness that they never, even in the worst straits, need to earn their bread by physical labour”.  Still, “their souls have never known chivalrous noble sentiments”.

In the quoted section of his book, Nietzsche states that the Jews do have a master plan for Europe: “Since they are unavoidably going to ally themselves with the best aristocracy of Europe more and more with every year that passes, they will soon have created for themselves a goodly inheritance of spiritual and bodily demeanor: so that a century hence they will appear sufficiently noble not to make those they dominate ashamed to have them as masters.  And that is what matters! … Europe may fall into their hands like a ripe fruit, if they would only just extend them.”

The past one hundred and thirty years prove that not only Europe, but also the United States, Canada and several other countries of the world fell into their hands, “like a ripe fruit”, and fell under the control of the super-rich Jewish money dynasties that became the leading group of the world global elite. Here I can only refer to the statement that can be found on page 324 of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, in which he writes the following on the goals of the immensely rich Jewish money dynasties and of the transnational money cartel operated by them:

“…nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. …”

Nevertheless, the hegemony of Jewry means primarily such a system of rule in which the money system, the economy, the power of opinion and the political system operate according to the system of values comprised in the Jewish tradition, and where the hegemony of the Jewish system of values and thinking asserts itself in the whole of the culture. All this is part of Judaism and Semitism.

In the relevant section 377 in Daybreak, Nietzsche introduces the important concept known as Jewish hatred:  “Where our deficiencies are, there also is our enthusiasm. The enthusiastic principle ‘love your enemies!’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters that ever existed; and the finest glorifications of chastity have been written by those who in their youth led dissolute and licentious lives.”

Nietzsche thought that the Judeo-Christian commandment of love grew directly from the hatred of the enslaved Jews, as a kind of mask or cover, but it can be taken even more than this, a kind of deliberate deception.  A “bad hater”, that is one who hates clumsily, expresses his feelings openly. A “good hater” hides them inside.  But the “best hater” plots revenge using the very opposite – an image of divine love – as cover.  “Even if you think of us as enemies”, the Jews might say, “love us anyway.  This is God’s command.”  This whole idea reemerges strongly only in 1887, when Nietzsche writes his masterpiece On the Genealogy of Morals.

Ágnes Heller, a Hungarian public writer states in her study titled What does it count to whom he speaks? that the “we” occurring in Nietzsche’s works means “we, the philosophers”. In the Preface written later, in 1886 to the Daybreak, he calls “my indulgent friends” those who are philosophers like him, but did not try to penetrate into the depth of things, therefore they did not experience the absolute solitude. Here he speaks as a philosopher with his fellow philosophers, by whom he wants to weigh himself.

After Daybreak there was a long five year stretch in which Nietzsche did not address the Jewish problem in any substantial way.  In his work The Gay Science (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft  he focused instead on the nature of science, on power, and on the “death of God”.  It was then when he wrote one of his most important works, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Also sprach Zarathustra).

But by 1886, with the release of Beyond Good and Evil (Jenseits von Gut und Böse), he had returned to the Jewish problematic.  Again his language is mixed.  He praises the Old Testament:  “In the Jewish ‘Old Testament,’ the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it”, he writes in section 52.  In fact it was precisely this style that he duplicated so effectively in his Zarathustra. He adds to this that Europeans are furthermore indebted to the Jews for their high conception of ethics. In section 250 he writes:  “What Europe owes to the Jews?  Many things, good and bad, and above all one thing that is of the best and of the worst:  the grand style in morality, the terribleness and majesty of infinite demands, infinite meanings”

In part from this indebtedness to the Jews, and in part from their example as a tough, coherent, enduring race, the Jews should be allowed a role in Europe, Nietzsche thought. Therefore In section 251 he decries the “anti-Jewish stupidity” of the times, remarking that “I have not met a German yet who was well disposed toward the Jews.” The common feeling was “that Germany has amply enough Jews”.  But the Jews need to be given due consideration, for their influence is not insignificant.

In On the Genealogy of Morality (Zur Genealogie der Moral, 1887), Nietzsche begins to write in more overtly racial tones, speaking of the “blond Aryan” as the “master race,” or the “conqueror race.”  In Part III, section 26 he again dismisses those who do not see instructive value in the Jews:  “I also do not like these latest speculators in idealism, the anti-Semites, who today roll their eyes in a Christian-Aryan-bourgeois manner and exhaust one’s patience by trying to rouse up all the horned-beast elements in people…”

But on the other hand, he strongly criticizes the Jews and their morality not because of their ability to succeed, but because of what they inherently are. Nietzsche writes about this in Part I, section 7 of the On the Genealogy of Morality:

“You will have already guessed how easily the priestly [i.e. Jewish] way of evaluating can split from the knightly-aristocratic, and then continue to develop into its opposite. …  The knightly-aristocratic judgments of value have as their basic assumption a powerful physicality, a blooming, rich, even overflowing health, together with those things required to maintain these qualities – war, adventure, hunting, dancing, war games, and, in general, everything which involves strong, free, happy action. The priestly method of evaluating has, as we saw, other preconditions…  As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies – but why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. The truly great haters in world history have always been priests…”

“Let us briefly consider the greatest example. Everything on earth which has been done against ‘the noble’, ‘the powerful’, ‘the masters’, ‘the rulers’ is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge. In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless), that is, to “only those who suffer are good; the poor, the powerless, the low are the only good people; the suffering, those in need, the sick, the ugly are also the only pious people; only they are blessed by God; for them alone there is salvation. By contrast, you privileged and powerful people, you are for all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lecherous, the insatiable, the godless; you will also be the unblessed, the cursed, and the damned for all eternity!”

“In connection with that huge and immeasurably disastrous initiative which the Jews launched with this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the sentence I wrote at another time—namely, that with the Jews the slave revolt in morality begins…”

Nietzsche continues this idea as follows: “The means by which this revolt was carried out was – Christianity.  Christian ‘love’ is little more than the ‘triumphant crown’ of the Jewish tree of hatred.  This love acted “in pursuit of the goals of that hatred – victory, spoil, and seduction – by the same impulse that drove the roots of that hatred deeper and deeper…into all that was profound and evil.”

Nietzsche draws the conclusion that under the sign of Christianity, Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals. After some two thousand years, this process continues, slowly but surely. In section 9 of Volume 1 he writes:

“The ‘redemption’ of the human race [from the classical master values] is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized, Christianized, mob-ized (what do the words matter!).  The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious – there is plenty of time.”

Nietzsche thinks that until we grasp this poisoning of modern man, we have no hope of liberating ourselves and attaining our higher destiny.

The book The Will to Power (Der Wille zur Macht) is made up by many notebook entries that are put together randomly. They are difficult to interpret, both because the writings are a scattershot of ideas and observations, and also because these were never intended by Nietzsche to be published. They appeared in book form only after his death, published by his sister.  Still, also in these writings he deals with the problematic of the Jews, as usual, in both laudatory and critical language.  In section 175 we read:

The reality upon which Christianity could be raised was the little Jewish family of the Diaspora, with its warmth and affection, with its readiness to help and sustain one another – unheard-of and perhaps not understood in the whole Roman Empire – with its concealed pride of the ‘chosen’ disguised as humility, with its innermost denial, untouched by envy, of all that is on top and possesses power and splendor. To have recognized in this a form of power, to have recognized that this blissful condition was communicable, seductive, infectious to pagans also – that was [St.] Paul’s genius: to employ this store of latent energy, of prudent happiness for a ‘Jewish church of freer confession’ – the entire Jewish experience and mastery of communal self-preservation under foreign rule, also Jewish propaganda – he divined that as his task. What he lit upon was just this absolutely unpolitical and withdrawn species of little people: their art of asserting themselves and prevailing, cultivated through a number of virtues which constituted virtue in its entirety (‘means by which a particular species of man preserves and enhances himself’).

The principle of love derives from the little Jewish communities: it is a soul of the more passionate kind that glows here under the ashes of humility and wretchedness: this was neither Greek, nor Indian, nor Germanic. The song in praise of love that Paulcomposed” is nothing Christian, but a Jewish outburst of the eternal flame that is Semitic. If Christianity has done anything essential psychologically, it is that it raised the temperature of the soul among those cooler and nobler races that were then on top; it was the discovery that the most wretched life can become rich and inestimable through a rise in temperature”

Of course, the German Nietzsche is sympathetic with the “noble-valued” Germans, and understands their “present instinctive aversion to Jews”. In section 186, he exposes this as follows:

The profound contempt with which the Christian was treated in the noble areas of classical antiquity is of a kind with the present instinctive aversion to Jews: it is the hatred of the free and self-respecting orders for those who are pushing and who combine timid and awkward gestures with an absurd opinion of their worth. The New Testament is the gospel of a wholly ignoble species of man; their claim to possess more value, indeed to possess all value, actually has something revolting about it – even today.”

Later he elaborates on this Jewish instinct of the “chosen”. In section 197 he writes about this as follows:

The psychological presupposition: lack of knowledge and culture, ignorance which has forgotten all shame: imagine these impudent saints in Athens; the Jewish instinct of the ‘chosen’: they claim all the virtues for themselves without further ado, and count the rest of the world their opposites; a profound sign of a vulgar soul; a complete lack of real aims, of real tasks, for which one needs other virtues than those of the bigot – the state took this work from their shoulders: these impudent people nonetheless behaved as if they had no need of the state.”

Nietzsche adds to this that the Jews’ message with this was: Except ye become as little children”. Nietzsche even explains that the founder of Christianity had to suffer because he turned to the lowest layer of the Jewish society and intelligence. They comprised the founder in such a spirit for which they had at all necessary notions. Nietzsche calls a shame that they invented a holy story, a personal God, a personal Saviour, a personal immortality, and they kept the total baseness of the person and story, starting from a doctrine which denies the reality from all personal and historical. This idea is continued in section 199 as follows:

Nothing is less innocent than the New Testament. One knows from what soil it sprang. This people of an inflexible self-will which knew how to prevail after it had lost every natural support and had long since forfeited its right to existence, and to that end had to raise itself up by unnatural, purely imaginary presuppositions (as chosen people, as community of saints, as the people of the promise, as ‘church’): this people handled the ‘pia fraus’ with such perfection, such a degree of ‘good conscience’, that one cannot be sufficiently cautious when it preaches morality. When Jews step forward as innocence itself then the danger is great: one should always have one’s little fund of reason, mistrust, and malice to hand when one reads the New Testament. People of the basest origin, in part rabble, outcasts not only from good but also from respectable society, raised away from even the smell of culture, without discipline, without knowledge, without the remotest suspicion that there is such a thing as conscience in spiritual matters; simply – Jews: with an instinctive ability to create an advantage, a means of seduction out of every superstitious supposition, out of ignorance itself.”

To this he adds that he considers Christianity the most fatal and the most seductive lie which has ever existed in the world. This is why he unveils the still perceivable consequences of Christianity and wages a merciless spiritual war against them.

In his polemical essay On the Genealogy of Morality, meant as a complement and explanation to his work Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche writes in section 16 of the first essay as follows:

“The two opposing values ‘good and bad’, ‘good and evil’ have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. If it’s true that the second value in each pair has for a long time had the upper hand, there’s still no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. We ourselves could say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and even greater depths and has become continuously more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a “higher nature,” a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in this sense and is truly a battleground for these opposites. The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called ‘Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome’. To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered ‘guilty of hatred against the entire human race’. And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of St. John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience…”

“The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talents – say, the Chinese or the Germans – with the Jews in order to understand who is ranked first and who is ranked fifth. Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is that people bow down to today in Rome itself, as the personification of all the highest values – and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame – in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, an, d the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered.  It’s true that in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, incredible re-awakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who had woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called “the church.” But immediately Judea triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of resentment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a consequence, the re-establishment of the church, as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome. In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, broke apart under the instincts of popular resentment – never on earth has there been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It’s true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard-of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity – and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind – in opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! As a last signpost to a different road, Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh. We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman (Unmensch) and the superhuman (Übermensch) . . .”

In connection with the problems analyzed above what Nietzsche writes in one of his last works, The Anti-Christ, Curse on Christianity (Der Antichrist. Fluch auf das Christentum, f1888).  Here he summarizes his views on the origin of Christianity from its Jewish foundation. In section 24 he writes as follows:

“Here I barely touch upon the problem of the origin of Christianity. The first thing necessary to its solution is this: that Christianity is to be understood only by examining the soil from which it sprung – it is not a reaction against Jewish instincts; it is their inevitable product; it is simply one more step in the awe-inspiring logic of the Jews. In the words of the Saviour, ‘salvation is of the Jews’. The second thing to remember is this: that the psychological type of the Galilean is still to be recognized, but it was only in its most degenerate form (which is at once maimed and overladen with foreign features) that it could serve in the manner in which it has been used: as a type of the Saviour of mankind.

The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions – one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance. We meet with the same phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only as a copy: the Christian church, put beside the ‘people of God’, shows a complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism.

In my ‘Genealogy of Morals’ I give the first psychological explanation of the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a noble morality and a ressentiment morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail. In order to be able to say Nay to everything representing an ascending evolution of life – that is, to well-being, to power, to beauty, to self-approval – the instincts of ressentiment, here become downright genius, had to invent an other world in which the acceptance of life appeared as the most evil and abominable thing imaginable. Psychologically, the Jews are a people gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when they found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose voluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side of all those instincts which make for decadence – not as if mastered by them, but as if detecting in them a power by which ‘the world’ could be defied. The Jews are the very opposite of décadents: they have simply been forced into appearing in that guise, and with a degree of skill approaching the non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have managed to put themselves at the head of all décadent movements (for example, the Christianity of Paul), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life. To the sort of men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity, – that is to say, to the priestly class – décadence is no more than a means to an end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and in confusing the values of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a manner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it.”

From the above quoted writings we can state that Nietzsche approached the Jewish religious chosenness in a specific way, characteristic only for him. He makes a lot of recognizing remarks on the Jewry as a community, but he cannot be regarded unambiguously philo-Semite. In judging the Jewish traditions and system of values, form of life and world strategy, he is frequently very critical, but he cannot be regarded unambiguously anti-Semite either. But by examining his writings in detail we gain a reasonably coherent understanding of his position –  of a strong dislike for Jews and for the morality that Judaism (and Christianity) have brought, but also an admiration for Jewish resiliency and ‘success’, as well as their efficient interest-enforcing capacity.  The bottom line, however, is clear:  Judaism, Jewification and the Jewish order of values are something that mankind must overcome for the sake of survival.

The ethnical-racial chosenness

The development of the ethnical-racial community self-identity was one of the pre-requisites of the appearance of the modern national states. The chosenness by God of a people on ethnical basis can be taken, in some respect, as the deepest root of ethnical self-identity. In this sense, chosenness means that a supernatural power makes superhuman beings those who He has chosen. The chosen ones are in a special relationship with the supernatural, with the God who has selected them for a determined purpose. From the multitude of peoples and human beings, certain persons and groups get the promise from God, the Spirit of the World, the Great Architect of the Universe that if they obey Him, then they can enforce God’s will in the world. The precondition of this is that they should separate, they should follow the way designated by the supernatural power, and, in this way, they should have a distinctive role in the salvation of the mankind, which is determined by the Deity itself.

If the chosen ones do so, God will defend them and endows them with prerogatives, since they obey His will in a special way, and identify with God’s plans. Such a chosenness does not necessarily mean the total separation of a group and superiority compared to other peoples, groups and human beings, but can enhance the appearance of such a situation. In the course of history several human groups have strived to justify their separation and superiority biologically, socially, politically and in terms of mental abilities compared to other groups and ethnic entities. But the endeavour to superiority is not necessarily linked to chosenness. Those human beings and groups of people who, in a way or another, strive to a differentiated protection and prerogatives, have a predilection for turning to supernatural forces for support. They strive to get, in some form, in contact with God and make an agreement with Him, who will promise them to assure them, in exchange, a special status among the other peoples.

A part of such an agreement with God are the selection, God’s promise, the sacred law, the sanctification of the community, the prerogatives linked to conditions and the testimony of all these. The people committed so with God turns inward and tries to find inside the real identification with God in accomplishing His orders. All this needs separation and the exclusion of others. Only a little is still necessary to all this so that the chosen ones should think: the possession of power – either economic, financial, military or political power – is the proof of the fact that the chosen people, ethnic entity or race is on a morally right way, therefore they are blessed by God. The best example for the chosenness on the basis of the covenant with God is Israel, but this kind of sense of chosenness characterized in the Middle Ages also the Armenians and Ethiopians.

Yet the chosenness has another form either. It is linked with a mission. The chosen people and its leaders got that divine assignment to be, in the name of God, the earthly representatives of the Omnipotent. The chosen ones having this mission regard themselves as tools of the execution of God’s plan. They enforce the will of the supernatural power and speed up the arrival of salvation. These chosen ones strive to transform the profane, i.e. non-initiated and pagan world. As delegates of God, with their missionary activity, they want to reach that the faithless, profane world should obey God, and thus the people should be saved. Apart from the peoples having a covenant with God, from the chosen ones on the basis of an agreement, these missionary chosen ones propagate their belief in a compulsory way, and, if needed, they even wage a so-called holy war for the sake of the true faith.

At first, we can remember the spreading of Islam, but the empire-building English nationalism was similarly expansive, which propagated about itself that, with its internationalism, it would lead the peoples to the freedom of religion and to the civil liberties. Oliver Cromwell, the outstanding figure of the English bourgeois revolution, did even state that the struggle of the English bears upon itself signs received directly from God, therefore the Britons are obliged to convey the true religion also onto the other peoples. In our days, the propagation by all means of the democracy and market economy seems to be a mission of this kind, received from a supernatural force. This spreading, missionary chosenness differs from the former, the agreement-based one in the fact that there the chosen decides himself about the joining and the undertaking of the rights and obligations afferent to the special status. On the other hand, in the case of the empire-building, expansive chosenness, their mission also comprises such people who are obliged to undertake that, either they like it or not.

In the case of the first group, the members can join and leave according to their belief. On the contrary, in the case of the second group, the choice is not voluntary. Here those communities are decisive, which are not based on sincere belief and faith. The decisive determining factor is the tie of kindred, the ethnic origin, which is, in the same time, a religious affiliation either. Belonging to this community is not based on voluntary choice and religious conviction, but the members of the community, from their birth, are ab ovo chosen: it is ordained who they are and what they have to believe in. The determining and unchangeable basis is the tie of kindred. In the history, the most important ethnical community appeared and survived on the basis of descent by blood, which states about itself that has been chosen, is the Jewish people. It is the descendent of such a community which forms, at the same time, a community of faith, of religion.

According to the ancient religious traditions and the prophets, the land of Canaan was given by God to the Jews, and it was the Jews who originated from the Biblical ten tribes. Since these are religious teachings and truths of faith, they cannot be questioned and are counted to be religious evidences that do not need proving. Israel’s consciousness of chosenness only reinforces what God has previously done, only for it and for its benefit. Therefore it is absolutely unacceptable to reject what God has done. In this question, Israel does not have a possibility of choice.

Of course, all this is contradicted by the position of those Jews who are not religious any more and, as secularized Jews, favour the knowledge and results of sciences. But, even the non-religious Jews accept, almost without exceptions, that, on maternal line of descent, they originate from the mythical Biblical tribes. This has importance even in our present-day modern world. Nevertheless, this determination is based on genetics and descent of blood, thus it has a racial character, but the conscience of chosenness still survived among the secularized Jewry. Chosenness, in the sense of a higher moral, community solidarity and charity. This is why the chosenness means increased moral obligations for many Jews. The Jewish people is bound not only by the agreement between God and Noah, made, according to the legends, after the Flood, but they are obliged also by those laws received on Mount Sinai, which prescribe for them to comply with higher ethical requirements, as compared to other peoples. Such a higher requirement means God’s increased presence and judgment. All this contributes to the fact that the Jews are ethically and ritually separated from other peoples, and this relates not only to the order of priests, but to the whole of the people of Israel.

The best example for the chosenness by God is the Jewish people, but we can face this question even in the case of other peoples. So, for instance, the aboriginals of Canada also made reference to the fact that the Creator put them on that land so that they should take care of it until the end of times. The myth of the common origin and the historical memory helps the survival of the given people. The ethnical community supports and perpetuates the collective responsibility which is necessary for the survival. According to the general view, in the 21st century, the Jews form the ethnic communities being in the most advantageous situation all over the world. On the other hand, the autochtonous communities also referring to their chosenness, like the North-American Indians or the Australian aborigenes, belong to the ethnics in the most disadvantageous situation.

So, does the chosenness have special advantages? According to one of the argumentations, the consciousness of chosenness helps the conquered and chased groups to survive. The consciousness that God has chosen them for the sake of a certain higher ethical purpose increases their self-respect and makes them able to fight those negative psychic impacts which go together with their subjected status. The conviction that they belong to the chosen strengthens the solidarity, the holding together of the given groups of people and makes their struggle more efficient against those forces which strive to annihilate their integrity and collective life. In the case of the autochtonous and aboriginal groups being in disadvantageous situations, the chosenness can effectively increase the self-respect.

This plays a lesser role in the interpretation of the Jewish chosenness. Apart from the autochtonous communities, the Jews have a high level of culture, are learned, can show up numerous scientific achievements, they are successful both economically and financially, and their social-political influence is determining in all those societies in which they live. The low collective self-respect is not characteristic to the Jewish communities. At the same time, several Jewish public personalities emphasize that, amid the permanent persecution, the consciousness of chosenness helped preserve the spiritual-mental health of the group. On the other hand, in the case of the native communities in disadvantageous situation, the weakening of the traditional values, the loss of the consciousness that they once were the chosen of the Creator, accelerated their assimilation and the disintegration of their communities.

Sticking to the chosenness is important from the point of the preservation of the traditional values. And the keeping alive of traditions strengthens the self-respect welding together the community. In the case of certain peoples, the national consciousness can strengthen the survival of the given popular-national community. This national consciousness can only be an effective preserving force if it is based on the – even emotionally based – sticking to the common historical and cultural traditions. Such common objectives can be effectively strengthened by the traditions about the origin and common extraction of certain peoples, that is the maintaining of a kind of transcendent dimension, a national mythology for the given ethnical community.

The concept of the Jewish chosenness was efficiently used by the Zionist groups of interest at the creation of the State of Israel. They argued that Israel needs that, because the Jews were continuously persecuted during the history, which threatened their existence. According to this view, the Christians and the Muslims wanted either to assimilate, either to exterminate, or to expel the Jews from those territories which were under their control. The persecution of the Jews by Christians was frequently motivated by the fact that they killed Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, this does not apply for the Muslims. We have already referred to the fact that the Christianity and the Islam are such religions detaining a mission, which, as converting, missionary religions, tried to extend their faith onto those who did not belong to their own spiritual-mental-blood communities. On the other hand, the Judaism is not a converting and expanding religion, and most of the Jews oppose that the Jewish religion could be taken on by others. The cause of this is that, if the Jews want to survive as a separate people, and Israel’s duty is to assure a secure shelter for this, then the Jewish religion must be reserved for the Jewish communities, separated even by blood and genetically.

The resistance against the gaining ground of Judaism is regarded as a kind of spiritual-mental aberration, which returns again and again in the course of history in different periods, but this mythical illness could never be totally fought, because it is like the plague or other similar contagious diseases. A permanent concomitant phenomenon of the human existence is to resist the repellent destruction, against which only the permanent and vigilant readiness can offer protection. This permanent moral readiness against the opponents of Judaism is regarded an obligation pertaining to the chosenness.

Chosenness cannot be weighed only from the point of the chosen people, ethnic community, but also from the point that would it be useful for the whole of mankind if a separating community of it regards itself chosen? One of the argumentations is that the chosenness assures the moral purity for the chosen group, and this is in the interest of all peoples. This purity is made possible by the separation and exclusion, since, in this way, the outstanding qualities and the more powerfully enforced moral obligations could bequeath appropriate leadership and scientific-cultural results to those who are not chosen.

The fundamental principle of the conservative order of values is that the society is divided into different classes and strata, and the interest of the whole society is that the power should be controlled and exerted by the best. In feudalism, the aristocrats represented the best, worthy of ruling. In other historical periods, the fulfilment of the role of the sovereign was done not on the basis of birth, but on the basis of suitability and talent, that is the intelligence, the moral and the wealth of the given persons. According to this, the conservative ideology justified the function of sovereign on the basis that the accumulated wealth made it possible for the rich to influence the social development more effectively. This does not comply with the theoretically exposed democratic principles, because they require, even today, the enforcement of the equal chances in the struggle for power.

The contractual chosenness based on the agreement with God is close to the conservative order of values. On the basis of this order of values, those ethnic groups which made an agreement with God care not only for their own fate, but also with the fate of the whole mankind. Being chosen for the accomplishment of duties determined by God or by history also involves the undertaking of special ethical obligations. The prerogatives afferent to the chosenness depend on the fulfilment of these obligations. According to this, the chosen nations have to maintain the high level of social justice and they have to perfect the political system of the world in conformity with their lofty goals. In order that the chosen could comply with these high demands, it is necessary to draw a sharp border between the chosen and the non-chosen, so that that high spiritual purity and moral elevation could be maintained, which the chosen need for the accomplishment of their mission.

We can see that, according to the Jewish concept of the chosenness agreement made with God, the Jews must comply with higher moral requirements than the non-Jews. Rabbi Norman Lamm writes in his article published within the frame of the conference The State of Jewish Belief – A Symposium (commentarymagazine.com, August 1996): “The Jewish spirituality fulfils two functions, reciprocally complementing each other: one of them is the holy people, the other is the priestly kingdom. The task of the former is the obligatory maintenance of the separation of the Jews for the sake of the achievement of the collective self-transcendence, while the latter comprises the obligation of the brotherly coherence of the spiritual elite to the rest of mankind, including also the teaching of how they should follow the Jewish pattern.”

The necessity of separation is connected with the establishment of the modern Jewish State of Israel. The representatives of the Jewish chosenness argue that all peoples in the world can be blessed through Israel, and this is why the Jewish State can fulfil its role of “the shining light” for the other nations. David Ben-Gurion justified with this argument the creation of the State of Israel. According to Ben-Gurion, the genius and uniqueness of the Hebraic people makes it possible for the Jews to be the leaders of other peoples. The “uniqueness” of the Jews originates from the fact that they were “the only people that remained in an intact way from the Old Age” and “which always had to struggle with the obstacles endangering its physical and spiritual survival”. (Anthony D. Smith: Chosen Peoples: Scared Sources of National Identity, London, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 53.)

Also Anthony D. Smith quotes in his above mentioned book from Aaron David Gordon (p. 91), according to whom “Israel had to admit: its fate was to be an exemplary nation, it had to become an “Am-Adam” (a “human people” or “the people of mankind”), i.e. it had to embody the whole mankind, which would inoculate its institutions and world view with moral and the respect of nature”.

The single role which Israel could claim on the basis of the cultural performance of the Jewry can be connected to the chosenness. The separation, generated by the chosenness, made it possible the flourishing of the Jewish culture, and those intellectual achievements on the basis of which the Jews can call themselves “the people of the Book” were to the benefit of all human beings. This view is worth the attention because it reinterprets the chosenness. Accordingly, this is not one of the forms of the particular separation, but the tool of the universal cooperation. Lothar Kahn states in his work Mirrors of Jewish Mind that the real universalism cannot appear if the whole human race does not contribute to its totality. The Jew can become a good French or German – a cosmopolitan – if he improves, perfects the Jewish character, essence in himself. In his work titled The Chosenness of Israel and the Jews of Today, Will Herberg adds to this that “the Jewish particularism, since it surpasses all national and cultural boundaries, in a strange way becomes committed and propagator of universalism”.

The extending of Jewish solidarity onto others is one of the forms of universalism. In this sense, the chosenness does not mean superiority. It is still true that, in this field, a Jew fails more easily than a non-Jew, since the former has to fulfil his special obligations.

An essential element of the chosenness is the purity maintained by the separation, because only in this way it is possible to assure the elevated moral conditions necessary for the leading of the whole mankind. The question raises necessarily: how can the non-chosen follow this leadership? How can they imitate the exemplary behaviour offered to them? The traditional conception is that the community undertaking the leadership must separate so that it could maintain its differentiating features. In the case of chosenness by God, the supposition that the Father Eternal has chosen the given group because it has such capacities which the other human communities, peoples and ethnicities do not detain. And if the non-chosen do not detain these capacities, how can they then hope to be able to follow the example shown up by the chosen, requiring special divine abilities? This is a logical contradiction between the universalism and particularism or between the pluralism and chosenness. Since the Enlightenment, it is difficult to make the public opinion accept that traditional view that certain groups have to comply with higher moral requirements, and thus they are entitled to more prerogatives than others.

The pushing forward of the Enlightenment led to the apparition of the reconstructionist Judaism. This trend rejected the concept of chosenness as morally untenable. It argued that the chosen ones inspire, suggest the superiority of the given community over other communities. The teaching of chosenness is based upon the supposition of that national or racial superiority, which, unavoidably, creates a dividedness among the chosen and non-chosen, and generates suspicion among the latter against the chosen. This dividedness, opposition and suspicion create a fertile ground for the continuous persecution of those who require to be chosen and differentiated from the other people.

Nevertheless, the chosenness can show up results and achievements in the field of culture. Separation from others has enhanced the development of such turning inward, such values and such practices, which mean a valorous contribution to the human civilization. Several public personalities, researchers and scientists have emphasized that there are no convincing proofs for the existence of such a supernatural, omnipotent being, which would have chosen a differentiated group of human beings so that later they should play an outstanding role among the other, non-chosen communities and ethnic entities of mankind.

Even if somebody cannot accept the existence of God, can we really state with certainty that the belief in their chosenness of certain human communities objectively enhanced the apparition of special cultural values. If, let us say, there was not the Jewish chosenness, could Einstein’s theory of relativity, Freud’s psychoanalysis or Mahler’s musical creation appear?

It can relatively easily be proved and taken as an evidence that the belief in the chosenness brings upon socially negative consequences, since it gives an irrational explanation to certain groups concerning what role they could play in the society, in the human history. The concept of chosenness can lead to an exaggerated turning inwards, to self-adoration, to a certain kind of narcissism, as well as to an unacceptable arrogance. Since the chosenness, starting from its essence, is separating and exclusive-expelling, it can offer an easy justification for certain groups for the oppression of other groups.

Chosenness is a characteristic touching the essence of the Jewish existence, and although this is debated by some sociologists, we can still say that this belief increased the solidarity, the keeping together of the Jewish communities and enhanced the success of their survival strategy. Earlier it might have even contributed to the fighting of the negative discrimination hitting the Jewish communities and the low degree of self-respect generated by this. Nevertheless, by the present day, all this has lost from importance, since the Jewish communities belong to the social groups with advantageous situation all over the world. They have the highest income among all ethnic groups and they occupy important state and social, economic positions, in a proportion much more surpassing their percentage in the population. Some of their groups are even organic parts of the global power elite controlling the world.

As for the Jewish chosenness, a certain grade of arrogance also appears in it. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to try to find these not too attractive characteristics in the Jewish chosenness. All in all, it can be proved that the Jewish communities have continuously been a big emphasis on the propagation and documentation of the outstanding Jewish achievements. It is true, it is really hard to find such an artistic trend, such a social or political movement, in which the Jews would not be overrepresented regarding their percentage in the population. This outstanding role could have both good and bad consequences, which certainly play a role in how the receiving peoples judge the Jewish communities living among them.

The outstanding Jewish scientific and artistic results are thus connected with the chosenness. Nevertheless, this appears also in those declarations, which are equally made by religious and secular Jewish leaders. In the present, we could also quote quite many manifestations which express similar thoughts as what Solomon Shindler, a radical reformist Rabbi formulated and what Kevin MacDonald quotes on page 157 of his work Culture of Critique: “We can consider a fact that we originate from a special ramification of mankind and that a different blood flows in our veins, that our temperament, our taste and our sense of humor differs from that of other people. As we are different in our external appearance, we are also different in that we view the world in a different way and we think differently in a series of questions.”

The idea that the Jews are special people manifests itself in a strong narcissism. Therefore, only a single “holocaust” took place in the history of the world, because the suffering of the Jews is greater than the suffering of anybody else. According to Norman Finkelstein, this expresses insensitiveness against the sufferings of other peoples and groups. The idea that the German National Socialism strived exclusively at the extermination of the Jews is being propagated by many holocaust conferences, museums, educational programmes and centres. This revision of history obscures the fact that the German Nazis strived at the oppression and extermination of several other groups of people either, so they persecuted and took into death camps the homosexuals, the gypsies, the communists and a series of non-Aryan people. Among the generations growing up in our days, it has become a dominant view that World War II was fought because of the Jewish question and not in order to determine who should seize the resources of the world, the global economic and political hegemony, that is the world rule.

The view that, in an incomprehensible way, always the Jews are the eternal victims, who are not responsible for the evolution of their fate, hinders the judging of those Jewish deeds – of the Jewish interest enforcement decisively influencing the course of history – which the organized Jewry has committed against the non-Jews. This is such an important problem, which is in organic connection with the conscientiousness of chosenness of the Jews. Since the chosenness has a separating, excluding character, and separates the chosen from the non-chosen, this kind of religious principle and order of values contradicts the system of equal chances and rights, the enforcement of social justice in human communities. According to the teaching of chosenness, one can either be an oppressed or an oppressor. In this way, the chosenness according to the agreement made with God is in contradiction with the democracy, the multiculturalism and the equality of different ethnic entities.

If we accept that chosenness exists, then it becomes legitimate the different standard applied for others, that is the double moral appears. The idea that one group is entitled to such advantages which the other group cannot detain, according to the witness of history, has continuously led to conflicts. The mankind could experience that the concept of English, French, Dutch or Japanese chosenness and vocation strengthened the self-satisfaction and hypocrisy of these peoples, when, during the colonization of the world, they applied violence against the conquered peoples. We can also refer to the fact that the consciousness of the Israelites arriving in ancient times to the Promised Land concerning which they are the people chosen by God offered the a justification when they expelled by force the native inhabitants of Canaan.

A good example for this is the mode how England acted in South Africa at the beginning of the 20th century. The Brits, endowed with civilizational missionary zeal, had the historic mission received from the fate – from God – to enforce the ethnic superiority and rule against the Boers, the farmer inhabitants of Dutch origin living there. (The Boers were South African peasants of Dutch origin who spoke and speak the Afrikaans, a kind of local dialect of the Dutch language.)

As the British conquerors interpreted their chosenness, it made them possible not only to preserve their own form of life, but also to force it onto others and to accomplish in this way their real mission: the expropriation of the work of those who did not belong to the chosen. And then the Afrikaaner population of white origin joined the British conquerors in the exploitation of the coloured population got in majority. The ill-famed and since then already terminated apartheid system in South Africa was established so that the white population declared itself superior and chosen against the black inhabitants of South Africa.

The chosenness became especially important in the case of the Jewish settlers immigrating into the State of Israel. The majority of these immigrants confess that they have been chosen to occupy those territories which are not populated by Jewish population. The chosenness contributes to the justification of the expulsion of the Arab population as well as to the refusal of the demand of returning home of the expelled. The result of this was that some public personalities and sociologists called Israel an “apartheid state”. They argue that in the former apartheid system, terminated in South Africa, certain groups of people enjoyed considerable privileges on racial and ethnical basis against other groups of people. From here it took only one step to show up that certain groups of people enjoy privileges, on racial and ethnical basis, also in Israel, on one hand regarding the citizenship and, on the other hand, regarding the ownership to the land.

The chosenness helps the justification of the fact that the State of Israel strives in a differentiated way at the preservation of the Jewish character of the state, in a way that it should not dilute the population too much with the numerous non-Jew population. As a counter-reaction, that way of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict came to the forefront according to which such a two-nationality state should be established in which there would not be an official state religion, and, accordingly, the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims would detain equal rights and chances for the free exertion of their religion. The two-state solution is not considered a feasible solution by several experts, because the territories remained for the Palestinian Autonomy do not make it possible the operation of a vivid state. The created realities show toward a constitutional national state based on the total equality of rights of the inhabitants living there, where the privileges based on chosenness for certain groups of people would not be enforceable.

The science, the rationalism convinces us about the fact that the chosenness by a supernatural power and being – God – belongs to the respectable but not verifiable religious myths. In spite of this, the public opinion accepts that certain human communities, certain peoples should be differentiated in this way. Nevertheless, in an increasingly secularized world, more and more skepticism surrounds the differentiation of certain groups of people and peoples according to irrational mythologies. One of the objectionable effects of this practice is that it favours, in a false way, those who believe in it. Without honest public and scientific debates, false data and legends will gain reinforcement again and again by the fact that they are further propagated and shown up as generally accepted. The propagation of chosenness also involves rejection and contempt from the part of the non-chosen.

The claim that certain groups of people are able to do greater things than the others can necessarily lead to alienation. Here we can also refer to the fact that if there was not the Jewish chosenness determining, it would be essentially easier to alienate the political tension in the Middle East area. Most people regard this conflict a conflict of political character, but it is based on a scientifically not justifiable religious legend, namely on that according to which the supernatural power, God, adjudged this land to the Jewish people. And they regard the Biblical Old Testament also as a legal document justifying an eternal right to the land.

The sticking to the chosenness enhances the apparition and preservation of deep differences, that is it permanently generates social conflicts and has a separating effect. We must raise the question: why don’t we avoid the permanent mentioning of the differences? The emphasis should be laid on what links the different people, their communities and the peoples. Therefore we can state that the chosenness and its combination with nationalism are out of date. The mankind must cooperate for the sake of fighting the dividing money rule world order and the creation of the new, harmonic world order. All this needs cooperation and not opposition, which is necessarily caused by the chosenness.

Chosenness is strongly dividing, because, if all nations claimed, democratically, to be chosen, then none of them could be chosen. The whole concept depends on the fact that we arbitrarily differentiate and separate certain people from the whole mankind. There are people who argue that all this might even be positive, if it were allowed for all peoples and races to control their fate, to exert political control over itself, and to detain a separated ethnical state on a determined territory. All this can be harmonized with the human rights and political freedoms as well as with the democracy itself until it does not involve that certain peoples and races, on the basis of their chosenness, are entitled to rule over other peoples and races.

Is the separatism feasible?

According to the testimony of history, the separatism is frequently (i.e. not always) necessary so that the chosen ones separated in this way could gain supremacy over the non-chosen. So the separatism, from their part, turns into supremacy, a leading role, superiority and supremacy. In this sense, the chosenness is one of the necessary phases of obtaining the rule over others. The first step is the separation from the majority, followed by the return to the majority, but already as the owner of the main power, of the hegemony.

One of the basic principles of separatism is “live and let live”. So, at first sight, the separatism seems more moral and more just than the supremacy, since wants to give similar rights to the other human communities, peoples and races. On the basis of the philosophy of separatism, a certain race must be given equal chances to establish that form of life which fits the best its biological and spiritual nature and prevents other races and peoples from interfering detrimentally in its life. In this sense, separatism applies the values of the classical liberalism, but not primarily to the individuals, but to the races.

Separatism often shows up itself so that the person who wants to separate his own race in fact does not deem itself to be better and superior than that one from which he wants to separate himself. He only feigns that he wants to separate just because he is different, and everybody is equally entitled to manage his own fate himself. This is simulation because, in fact, it belongs to the essence of human nature that man strives to consider himself better and superior than the others, and, depending to the comparison, it is even essentially true.

Separatism tries to enforce several acceptable requirements even in connection with the living space and natural environment of man. Different human communities, races, sub-races are necessarily depending on certain territories, natural environments, and if their survival requires the possession of a certain living space, lebensraum, then one of the parties must get rid, in some way, of the other. This can take place with blending of races or with the expulsion or extermination of the other race. One of the optimal forms of the natural diversity of the living world related to man is separatism.

Separatism can still be benefic also for the preservation of cultural diversity. If many kinds of culture live together in the same society, the cultural differences will inevitably lead to disagreements and conflicts. The consequences of these are either that they separate, in a violent way, the cultural communities in the given society, and they survive as homogeneous and autonomous cultural communities. Another possibility is that one – became known as the “theory of the melting pot” in the first half of the 20th century, for instance in the United States – the essence of which is that the different culture will be gradually integrated and a new, common culture will appear, in which the differences will lose importance. One of the consequences of this was that, in the field of culture, the only lowest common multiple became such a homogenized cultural hybrid, of a lower level than the previous one, which relates, for instance, to the English literary language as the primitive “English”, the Pidgin-English appeared in Eastern Asia, which is suitable for commercial activities, for serving the most primitive life relations, but is totally unsuitable for expressing any higher level, more exigent, intellectual, ethical, moral, social or esthetical feelings and thoughts. The Pidgin-English is not suitable for becoming the tool of the abstract thinking, that is no such higher level intellectual and sensual activity can be expressed with it, which differentiates, as for the essence, one man from another or one culture from another.

On the other hand, supremacy stands against the principles of the classical liberalism. A man or a community thinking according to such a system of values wants that his race, his ethnic entity should detain an own homeland, country and territory, where he could manage his own fate freely. The adept of supremacy does not accept that the same freedoms and opportunities should be given to other ethnic entities and races either. He wants instead that his own ethnic entity should rule over other ethnic entities and races. Such a rule can be benevolent, caring like a father and even useful, but, should it take any form, the supremacy on racial basis denies that all ethnic entities, peoples and races detain equal rights and have rights for self-determination to the same extent.

What we have presented above, is the abstract, theoretical approach. Nevertheless, in practice, as in many other cases, the situation is totally different. Here it is worth mentioning Edgar J. Steele’s terrifying vision exposed in his work titled Defensive Racism. In it he outlines what would the United States become if its territory were divided into racially homogeneous parts, on the basis of the above presented principles of separatism. Edgar J. Steele is an American lawyer, the counsel for the defence of the white nationalist organization Aryan Nations, and thus one of the most initiated expert in the problem of the racial separatism. In his book he outlines what would happen to the United States if it was split up: the whites would get “New America”, the Mestizos would get “Aztlan”, the blacks would get “New Africa” and the Jews would get “New Israel”. To this, the “New Palestine” could be added, for several millions of American Arabs. The establishment of a new state for the Asians in the area of San Francisco and in Hawaii. All these would be not simply ethnically separated territories, but totally autonomous, independent states, over which the central government of the present-day United States would not exert power any more.

The main problem was that these new states which would surround the state of the white Americans, that is New America, would threaten the security of this white state. If San Francisco and its surroundings were an eastern enclave, breaking and ethnic cleansing would soon take place. It is quite probable that this territory would get under Chinese control and after a short time would become the continental China’s American colony and military base, which also detains nuclear weapons. After this, the Chinese would get an opportunity to seize newer territories, either with nuclear blackmail or aggressive expansion.

If there were a New Israel on the North American continent, obviously on the eastern coast, it would weaken the direct Jewish power exerted over the whites, but would not refrain the Jews from continuing to spread the cultural scrap through the mass-media and from fostering decadence among the whites. Furthermore, why should we assure a newer sovereign territory to the Jews, from where they can conspire for their global actions and where they can flee if their victims revolt against them? – asks the question Edgar J. Steele in his work Defensive Racism, not at all in the required “politically correct” language.

And finally, lest the New Palestine be established in the vicinity of New Israel, we can predict that the Israeli Jews would move to New Israel in masses, together with their nuclear, biological and chemical weapon stock, by which they can threaten and blackmail the whites. Finally, the New Israel would be in an essentially much more security. The territory of the present-day Israel had to be taken away from its inhabitants, while the New Israel would get such a territory from the inhabitants of America, which was obtained by the ancestors of the white Americans and civilized with their blood, their brain and their muscle power. In fact, they would give over one of their most valorous territories to the Jews, who, according to Edgar J. Steele, would not deserve anything “for their parasitism and for the weakening of the American national conscience and community life”.

An ethnically homogeneous Black State inhabited by blacks in North America would soon follow the example of the other states inhabited by blacks. The civilization built up by the white man would collapse getting under the hegemony of the blacks, who lack the due intelligence, spirit of initiative, foresight and moral constancy to build up or maintain such a civilization themselves. It can be presumed that if whole states of the United States became inoperative got under black hegemony, these territories would become a huge Detroit. In this town, which was one of the centres of the American automobile industry between 1910 and 1930, the proportion of the black inhabitants raised with 60%. But in our days this big city grown to one and a half million inhabitants is full of slums, unhygienic, broken-down quarters and dirty housing estates.

Steele thinks that, in the same way, such – in our days still beautiful and attractive – cities like Savannah, Charleston or New Orleans would become like Detroit, the turmoil and chaos would appear in their streets, the public security would disappear and their streets would be invaded by gangs fighting each other. The frightened and meek whites would be ready for charity in order to help the starving children and would open their borders in front of the masses of pitiful refugees. In this way, the states originally inhabited by whites would soon get in a similar situation in which they are at present. What is more, it cannot even be excluded that in the states of black inhabitants such dictators could seize the power like the ill-famed Idi Amin or Bokassa was.

Continuing the mental essay: it can be imagined that black leaders of this type, as allies of New Israel or the Red China, would jointly exert pressure on the whites. Steele sees that similar processes would take place also in Aztlan, South California and the South-West, where, similarly to other deprived people, the uneducated, mixed population speaking Spanish lives.

(Aztlan is the ancient homeland of the Nahua legends, where seven tribe of Nahuas lived. The meaning of the word “Aztec” means “belonging to Aztlan”. The legends about Aztlan were preserved in Spanish records made after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. The legend of Aztlan was one of the incentives of the Spanish voyages of discovery directed to the territory of the present-day California, and, in the 1960s and 1970s, it was used as a symbol by some irredentist groups of the Chicano Movement, proving in this way Mexico’s right to the territories annexed to the United States of America during the 1848 Mexican-American War.)

Those who would like to split up the present-day United States into ethnically homogeneous states want in fact something like that the still number one power of the world should accept, without any struggle, its mutilation as well as the ceasing of its richest and most beautiful territories to others. But the whites cannot live in security even in their homogeneous states. Those who have previously taken away the lands of the whites because they were not brave enough to defend them, would think that they should not be left in peace any longer, and they would strive to seize more territories inhabited by whites. If, on the other hand, the whites, at that time, would already be ready to defend their borders and expel the invaders, why don’t they do this right now?

We summarized in detail Edgar J. Steele’s Defensive Racism because we wanted to show that this way of the racial separation is not feasible. We do not believe that this scheme would be achieved in practice, no matter how big assignment a government can have, so that it could force masses of its coloured citizens to leave their new homeland and to return there from where they arrived. The other possibility which is still open for the adepts of separation, is to establish such separated and autonomous reservations for the non-white communities living in areas inhabited by whites. This, on the other hand, is nothing but racial supremacy, that is when the whites would exert authority, main power over the other ethnic entities. They would have the leading role and they would be in decisive position in all essential questions. This is nothing else than that kind of system based upon racial supremacy which they would in fact annihilate. And, by this, the circle is closed. We can hereby state that neither the separatism, nor the supremacy would mean a real solution to the problem of the racial separation.

Jewry as a genetic community

With the quick development of genetics, the scientists were more and more able to gather the data concerning the genetic code of the Jewish communities living in dispersion, and thus they detain such a Jewish genome, that is the total genetic matter of the cell, which makes it possible the research of the origin and of development with a pragmatic genetic method. The specialists are already able, in a certain respect, to research and study this genetic map as a history book. Maybe that thing would be also studied whether most of the European Jewish communities are really the descendants of the Khazars, 80% of whom, according to the historical data at disposal, converted to the Jewish religion in the 9th century or not.

The 2010 June 10 issue of Newsweek magazine refers to the report titled Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era. According to it, the major Jewish diaspora populations have common genetic clusters, and this reinforces the tradition that the Jews living in diaspora have a common genealogical line. Naturally, the different diaspora communities detain also specific genetic features, characteristic only for them. These results are essential because they can decide the question whether the Jews form only a religious-ideological community or also a genetic, genealogical community, that is an independent ethnic entity. In the course of the experiments and tests performed in different Jewish communities, all four grandparents of the given person were taken into account, i.e. the grandparents had to descend from the same diaspora. The Jewish population has preserved its genetic cohesion in the same way as it preserved its cultural and religious traditions. It could achieve all this by migrating from the Middle East region to Europe, North Africa and even territories beyond it.

The fact that all Jewish populations have preserved stable common genetic features supports the statement that all of them originate from the Middle East. It can also be stated that even the Jewish groups living at a big distance from each other show more similarity with each other than with the receiving non-Jew population. The Turkish and Italian Jews show a very close genetic relationship, although they live at a geographic distance from each other. The Iranian and Iraqi Jews lived in the antique Persia and Babylon, and they preserved their genetic communities through three thousand years. In the days of glory of the Roman Empire, when the Jewish religion was still a missionary religion, a number of six million Romans converted to the Jewish faith, according to Josephus Flavius, i.e. ten per cent of the population of the Roman Empire. This conversion in mass somewhat modified that DNA basis which originally was characteristic to the community which originated itself from Abraham.

The mentioned research questions the assertion that the present-day Ashkenazi Jews are directly descendants of those Khazars who converted to the Jewish faith. The researchers in genetics established that an admixture with the local population (including the Khazars and the Slavs) really took place in the course of the millenary history of the European Jews, i.e. in the second millennium. From among the non-Jew Europeans, the genome of the North Italian inhabitants as well as that of the inhabitants of Sardinia and France is most similar to the genome of the Jews. And that of the Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian Jews shows close similarity with the genome of the Druze, the Bedouins and the Palestinians. This proves the fact that the inhabitants of the Mediterranean area have a common genetic heritage. The South Europeans can be considered the genetic relatives of the Ashkenazi, the Sephardim and Italian Jews. This refers to the fact that many of the South European population joined the Judaism two thousand years ago.

The genetic features of the Sephardim Jews show a close relationship with those of the North African inhabitants, probably due to the mixed marriages between the Moors and the Jews, which took place primarily in Spain between 711-1492. In the Middle Ages, the number of the Jewish population decreased to fifty thousand in Western and Eastern Europe, then it raised again, reaching half million in the 19th century. In this period the increase in population of the Jews was two times bigger than that of the non-Jews.

This success of the genetic cohesion is owed to the Judaism, which proved to be the successful strategy of the ethnical survival and development. So, the Judaism can even be taken as the enhancer and protector of a people’s survival. The Judaism prescribed how the Jews should establish and enforce barriers in order to hinder the free mixture of genes, so that, in this way, they could preserve their separation from the other peoples. This separation and the strict closeness could bring results in the competition for the resources and the wealth between the Jews and the non-Jews. Also this genetically-based cohesion strengthened the mutual assistance among the group, the compulsory charity, and all this in such a way that nobody could abuse of this in the detriment of the others. This separation enhanced the improvement in quality of the genes and led to the current status that the average IQ of the Jews is higher than that of the average white population.

Semitism as the strategy assuring the ethnic survival

In the present writing, we use the notion of Semitism in an almost totally identical meaning with Judaism. We do this primarily because the used literature takes anti-Semitism as the contrary of Judaism. Both logically and grammatically, it is easier for us to confront Semitism with anti-Semitism. Kevin MacDonald, Professor of psychology at the California State University, Long Beach, published his work titled A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy in 1994, which is the first part of a trilogy. (Hereinafter, we refer to this book as Judaism.)

MacDonald means by group evolutionary strategies such strategies which enhance putting into practice of such experiments which are suitable to prepare the members of the group for establishing such a cohesive, even genetically separating community, which is able not only for survival, but also for development and growth. Such a strategy can be regarded the limitation of extra-group marriages, the enforcement of the cultural separation, the fostering of the within-group altruism and economic cooperation, enhancement of the procreation of such descendants who increase the intelligence of the group members and their resource-obtaining capacity, as well as high investment in parenting and increasing of the commitment to group.

In Chapter 2 of Judaism, MacDonald reviews those scientific results which offer newer knowledge about the genetic differences between Jews and non-Jews. From this knowledge we can draw the conclusion that Judaism-Semitism is such a group strategy which, if not wholly, but partially prevents the penetration of non-Jewish genes into the gene pool of the Jewish community. According to the available data, the Jews form a community that is genetically separated from those communities which they were living together with for centuries. The common gene pool of the Jews living in the most different territories is significantly bigger than the gene pool common with the non-Jew inhabitants living in their close vicinity.

The Judaism is an example for such a religion which can be interpreted also as a group survival strategy. This religion strongly fosters endogamy, the marriage within the group, and condemns exogamy, the matrimonial companionship outside the group. The importance of the marriage according to the descent by blood and the careful recording of the relationship between relatives occupies a differentiated place in the religious literature of Judaism, and plays an important role in understanding the activity of patriarchs. Judaism is an ideology which works also as a survival and development strategy in the diaspora, with the genetic and cultural segregation. This is revealed by the Tanakh, the part of the Old Testament regarding the priesthood. These parts were written by Jewish priests during the so-called Babylonian captivity.

In Chapter 4 of Judaism, MacDonald examines closely those aspects of the Jewish religious ideology which enhanced the genetic and cultural separation of the Jews and non-Jews. From this, the Californian university Professor draws the conclusion that the Judaism (Semitism) is a genetically rather closed survival strategy, chosen by itself. In ancient times, from among many hundreds of human communities, it was the Judaism the only one which could avoid those powerful tendencies which were characteristic for the cultural and genetic assimilation processes of the western societies. The Judaism, as a group strategy, reinforces again and again the group identity consciousness, as the tool of the social control. It prevents the evolution of the genetic admixture with other groups of people living in close vicinity.

This genetic separation was enhanced by numerous tools used in the cultural life. They included the keeping of religious ceremonies and customs, the linguistic separation, the acquisition of common rules of behaviour, as well as the similar external appearance and the practicing of similar occupations. It was especially important to live in physically separated territories, where the management of the Jewish communities, their legal and criminal law relationships were controlled by the Jews themselves. This practice was applied also in the communities living in the diaspora. This practice was strengthened also by the dominant ideology, which strongly limited the number of those who could convert to Judaism, and which effectively prevented the mixed marriages between Jews and non-Jews.

In Chapter 5 of his book, the author reviews those proofs, facts and data, which support the fact that a competition is going on between the Jews and the non-Jews for the resources (money, wealth, positions and other advantages). He starts from the point that the anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism was the most powerful where the receiving communities were in the sharpest competition with the Jews. Several data support the fact that the Jews usually undertook the role of mediator between the ruling group of the given country or people and the population. In such situations, the non-Jew elite groups supported actively this mediation activity of the Jews, and they themselves were important beneficiaries of the enforcement of the Jewish economic and financial interests at the detriment of the native population. The listed data also prove the fact that this kind of relationship was widely dispersed, and led to sharp conflicts in certain historic periods.

So, in Spain, in the period preceding the Inquisition, a sharp competition was going on for the resources between the Jewish and non-Jewish groups. The situation was similar in Poland at the establishment of the modern Polish state, as well as in Europe and North America following the Jewish emancipation. The competition for the resources had an impact on another important factor: the increase in population of the given group of interest. The increase in population of the group of people being in a more advantageous situation regarding the resources considerably surpasses the reproduction indexes of the group in disadvantageous situation.

In the following part of his book, MacDonald reviews those data, which support how important role the contacts based on relationship, the close cooperation, the strengthening of solidarity and the exertion of the unselfish charity play within the Judaism (Semitism). All this is advantageous in the competition for the resources with the non-Jews and in maintaining the cohesion within the Jewish community. Many data refer to the fact that the advantages offered to relatives play an important role in the financial and economic activity performed by the Jewish groups of interest. The mutual support and helping within the group is a life strategy pertaining to the essence of Judaism. We must point out here that the group interests precede the interests of the individual, and the importance of the interests of the community accompanies the whole Jewish history. It can be proved that those individuals who tried to put their own personal interests to the front, against the interests of the community, were, in a way or another, punished by the community.

Within the community, a strong internal control assured the high degree of support, the assistance of the weaker, of those in disadvantageous situation. The control of the Jewish communities also comprised the control of the cooperation with non-Jews, if it affected also the interests of the Jewish community, or strengthened the business or other economic activity of the non-Jews, increasing in this way their competitiveness. All this does not mean that there was not a quite perceivable limit of the unselfishness within the group. Especially in hard times, during economic and demographic crises, the poorer Jews were given differentiated attention and assistance.

MacDonald also asks the question whether the Judaism (Semitism) can be taken or not such a communitarian life strategy, which lays the emphasis on the interaction between the community and its environment. On one hand, he gives the answer to this question that, from ecological point, Judaism can be regarded as a strategic investment, which supports the Jews in seizing the resources in the competition with non-Jews. He emphasizes that the studying of the Jewish religious scriptures was connected with the authority within the Jewish community, and was in close connection with the seizing of resources, the successful founding of a family and the procreation of descendants.

The Jewish religious and social practice laid a great emphasis on the education of children so that they could step into life as competitive, and so that they could get into primary positions against those who do productive work. Judaism (Semitism) was also characterized by the fact that the parents chose the spouses for their children in a thoughtful way, laying great emphasis on the cultural and other advantageous features, which then could enhance for their descendants the successful way of life in the hierarchized society. From the gathered data it can be read – as we have already referred to – that the average level of intelligence of the Jewish population is higher than that of the non-Jewish population. But also other demographic factors support the fact that the Jews generally invest much in the education and training of their children. This is completed with the practice which links the members of the community strongly to the group, and excludes, expels those who are not willing to identify with the goals of the group.

Later on, the result of this was that the practice strengthening the hereditary properties, physical and mental abilities of man, which favour that strongly solidarizing, collectivist groups should be formed from the Jewish communities. In the last chapter of his book, MacDonald emphasizes that it is not reasonable to regard the group-strengthening strategies as ab ovo determined by ecological conditions or by other evolutional theories. He regarded the life-preserving group strategies such experiments with living communities, which can be developed and maintained with cultural tools. In the closing chapter of his work, he already thinks that the development of Judaism (Semitism) depends on the joint existence of three historic factors.

On one hand, that strong ethnocentrism is necessary, which is generally characteristic for the Middle East cultures. It can be argued that whether this precondition is genetically determined or not, but, on the basis of the cross-generation selective impacts, the tendency of ethnocentrism strengthened. The second historic experience, which strengthens us about the story readable in the Old Testament, that of the successful fleeing from the so-called Egyptian captivity, is that the diaspora strategy can be successful from the point of the survival of a people.

In the third place, MacDonald mentions the unique leveling and organizational structure of the Israeli tribes. As a result of this, such a leading priesthood layer appeared, the class of the Levites, the social status of which depended on their line of descent by blood, and whose personal individual interests are vitally interconnected with the fate of the whole Jewish community. The Levites were who, individually, gained the most advantage from the group survival strategy, which strategy finally created the historic Judaism, the Semitism.

The chosen people as an organized community of interest

We have already dealt in detail with the Jewry as a religious, ideological community and a relatively closed genetic, ethnic community. Now we shall inspect closely how the Jewish communities work as collectivities ensuring the defense of interests, the group solidarity of the “chosen people”, maintaining the traditions with common learning and education, enhancing its ethnic self-government.

How the Jewry organizes itself and operates as a community of interest, as a keeping together big family, can be studied the best – in its most developed form – in the United States. There are no exact figures concerning the world Jewry, but, according to the available data, their number may be between 15 and 20 million. In Israel, not counting the inhabitants of the occupied territories, some 7.5 millions live, of which, more than 5 million declare themselves Jewish citizens of Israel from religious and genealogical point. The majority of the rest of Israeli citizens consists of Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin and Arab ethnicity. Most of the Jews live in the United States, their number is around 2-2.5% of the 300 million total number of inhabitants, that is it ranges between six and seven millions.

The Americans regard the Judaism as one of the most determining religions in their country. Nevertheless, the Jewish population is not simply a religious community such as it is practiced by the different Christian confessions, but is also an ethnic community, which forms an efficiently organized collectivity. As an organized community, they represent the organic part of the Jewish religious life, but they also separate themselves from it. Beside the religious, congregational cohesion, the Jewish communities also perform educational, teaching and cultural self-activities, and their interest-protecting role is also important. An important part of the Jewish collective life is constituted by the cultivation and protection of the communitarian relationships, as well as the cultivation of the solidarity of the people living within the given settlement, and the assurance of the welfare services for those in need. They complete the local public administration with a developed self-administration. From the point of all American Jewish communities, it is also determining that their members maintain an intimate relationship with Israel and the Jewry living there.

The religious life of the American Jewry is similarly organized than that of the other religious congregations in the United States. It takes place primarily in the synagogues and the movement activity based on synagogues, in the framework of which the congregations having similar views cooperate with each other. Any Jewish community can create a congregation, can elect a Rabbi for itself, and can start its common religious activity. The situation is different in Israel, where the Chief Rabbinate organized and financed by the state operates, together with numerous religious institutions, also recognized and supported by the state.

This organizational system was taken over from the Jewish society by the Christians two thousand years ago, but in the present it fits well into the American environment, where a kind of “free competition” is going on even in the field of religious life. The majority of American Jews belongs to either reform or conservative synagogues. The two trends detain about the same number of followers. The number of those belonging to the so-called reconstructionist trend or to the union of traditionalist Judaism is considerably lesser. Except for a few ultraorthodox communities, the control is at the given congregations, and their conferences held on national level only mean a loose cooperation.

An extremely important part of the life of Jewish communities consists of the effective operation of the educational and cultural sphere. The following of the Jewish religious traditions requires the studying of the Bible (Torah), the Talmud, the law-books and the religious commentaries. This is the precondition so that the Jews could accomplish the religious prescriptions. Since these texts must be studied in their original language, it makes it necessary to acquire the Hebraic and Aramean languages to some extent. Even from the necessity of learning the language, the Jews have to live a more intensive religious life, and have to spend more time on it. In order to make this easier, the translations into English have been made lately.

The acquisition of the Jewish culture is being done on basic and intermediary level as well on higher, university level. Since 1960, at colleges and universities, it is possible to study Judaistics on academic level, besides the general training. Furthermore, there are some curriculums in Hebraic language at a few universities under Jewish control. These teaching programmes are partly not congregation-oriented, but have a primarily scientific character. These studies are completed by the forms of adult training, the study groups operating within the synagogue, and the common learning at home performed actively within the given communities.

The Jewish cultural institutions is also important, which embrace from the local Jewish theatre and community houses to the highest level of publication programmes, and comprise nearly all cultural branches. All this is crowned by the research programmes, satisfying the highest level academic requirements, which make it possible the training of scientists of the highest level in the branches of Judaistics. As a result of this, a typical American Judaism has already been established.

The fostering and protection of the community became more and more important in the latest decades. Following the experiences of the Jewish existence, the fear from the strengthening of anti-Semitism increases also in America. To defend themselves from it, the Jews established the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, the Jewish labor Committee, the Federation of Jewish War Veterans, as well as several local Jewish Councils. All of them are held together by an umbrella organization: the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

The cooperation between them is possible because it was possible to reach a consensus. Instead of rivaling, these organizations specialized, so they reciprocally complete each other. They are secular bodies, in which religious organizations and persons also take part. In several communities, the leaders of the secular organizations are the same as those who are active also as members of the synagogue. In these organizations, mostly the secular Jews were active for years, who followed liberal principles. In the control and protection of the Jewish communities the emphasis was laid primarily on the organizational relations, so they cooperated with other religious, secularized or charity groups in the struggle against the different forms of discrimination and racism. Since the influence of the secular left decreased also in the life of the Jewish communities, there are more and more religiously committed Jews in the leadership of these organizations.

One of the most important requirements of the Jewish communitarian life is the strengthening of the solidarity within the group, the defense of the common interests and the assistance of those in need. The charity activity and the operation of the organizations dealing with this remained one of the most important parts of the community life.

Solidarity and charity became the number one duty of the American Jewish communities overseas, that is in Europe, in Russia and then in the Soviet Union and in other parts of the world when, following World War I, the Jewish communities got, in masses, into difficult situation. At that time the Joint, in its full name the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee was created for the sake of relieving the hardships. After World War I, the Joint played an important role in subsidizing the Jews living in Palestine. It did the same activity which in our days is done by the United Israel Appeal. Later on, it united with the Joint, and so the United Jewish Appeal was brought to life, which, in our days, is one of the greatest money-collecting Jewish organizations in the United States.

In the latest two decades, such sponsors as Bronfman, Mandell, Milken and Wexner gained important roles in the lives of the American Jewish organizations, who, together with several other well-off but not outstandingly rich persons, supplied considerable financial assistance to the foundations established by Jewish communities. It is important to keep in mind that, in the life of the Jewish community, the religious and non-religious organizations cannot be separated from the whole of the Jewish communities. These secular organizations and institutions raise their word also in the defense of the interests of religious characters of the Jewish communities, and even if not verbatim, but they follow the teachings of Judaism and they activate within the framework of the soldering common spirituality of Judaism. This is fortunate from the point of maintaining the Jewish community life because the religious groups are often divided and rivaling with each other, but, at the same time, it is necessary that all Jews should form a keeping together collectivity and could maintain their family and community form of life. This is necessary for the unique and effective representation of their interests against the non-Jew world.

The Jewish community fits, like a mosaic, into the whole of the American society. The Jewish community consists of decentralized institutions and organizations the operation of which is maintained by the self-operation and the support of the interested people within the given community. The Jewish communities do not think in the same way, and within a community, even in the case of the high grade of consensus, there is always a minority expressing a counter-opinion, which strongly enforces its views and will. From this emerges the fact that that one who wants to have an effect on the whole of the Jewish community has to exert a quite wide scale of activity. This is especially true in religious questions. The Jews fostered, from the very beginning, the separation of the state and church, first of all from self-interest. This is revealed by the ideology of the post-emancipation ideology of the modern Jews, who regarded the democracy and the pluralism a basic good, which can only reached by the strict separation of the church and state.

Only in the near future appeared such Jewish communities, which, although they were committed in the question of maintaining of the separation of church and state, but have already understood that this kind of separation makes it possible that, in the American society, such pagan religions, not pertaining to the western culture could gain ground, the role of which earlier was not important, but, at the same time, the one-god religions considered as accepted of the West would lose ground.

In spite of the appearance of these new points of view, in the American Jewish society it is still very strong the consensus which favours the separatist self-definition. It is well-known that the American Jews belong to those who are committed to the importance of the separation of state and church. The strict separation of state and church became almost a dogma in the way of thinking of the American Jewry. The only exception in this respect is the orthodox Jewish community, the members of which would welcome if the monotheistic principles were enforced more strongly in the American society, in the whole American culture, compared to the teachings of other religions. This would make it possible for the institutions sharing the same order of values – especially those in the educational sphere – to get more public assistance.

The ultra-orthodox Jews have no doubts in the respect that the state should intervene in religious cases, if their educational institutions got more assistance by this. This position is rooted in the fact that they consider the United States a Christian country within which they, the ultra-orthodox Jews form a minority. They expect that the state hosting them, pertaining to the Christian cultural circle, beyond the support of the Christianity, should, in a democratic way, help the non-Christian religious congregations, including the communities following the Judaism.

The modern orthodox way of thinking is closer to the concept of the whole Jewish community concerning the relationship between the state and church. Nevertheless, even the modern orthodox Jews sympathize with the idea that the government should assist those religious institutions which also fulfil public service and state duties. Nevertheless, they imagine so that the state should not essentially influence the separatist position of the whole of the Jewish community.

The conservative and neo-conservative Jews are, on one hand, open to re-determine the role of the monotheist religious congregations in the society, and they are willing to accept that the old approaches are already worn-out. On the other hand, the separatist position, favouring the traditional separation and differentiation exerts a strong attraction to many of them. According to their standpoint, an important Jewish interest is linked to that the state, as much as possible, should remain neutral in religious cases. Their approach is worth the attention that they are willing to accept that the state should support a kind of synthesized religious culture created with a kind of consensus, in the meanwhile maintaining the consistent separation of the state and the congregational religions.

We can see that the American Jewish society is composed on one hand from the mainstream community, and on the other hand from the orthodox community. There is also a third organization, which, at present, plays and active part in the American public life and the members of which represent primarily conservative views. Therefore, the person for whom it is important that the Jewish society should be as organized as possible, should maintain an active relationship with the religious leaders, with the controllers of the self-active communitarian life, as well as with the Jewish intelligentsia, with university teachers and scientific researchers. The first leadership group controls the organized religious activity, the second one the self-active communitarian life, and the third one is responsible for determining what Judaism is and what being a Jew means in a given era, in a given country and in a local community.

Daniel J. Elazar, the founder and leader of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, writes in his study that is available on the internet, Reaching Out to the American Jewish Community that the organizations supervising the fate of the Jewry in the world should cooperate with the representatives of the rabbinic and non-rabbinic religious activists and to assist them in survey the populations they serve. Similarly, it is necessary to bring together the major leaders of the federations and their “family” of organizations, locally and nationally, and leaders of the major organizations formally outside of the federation network, particularly the great community relations groups and educational institutions. In the third place, Elazar finds particularly important the close cooperation with the leading scholars of Judaica at the major rabbinical seminaries and at Jewish continuing education institutions.

According to Elazar, ascertaining where American Jews stand on religion and the public square involves ascertaining the “fundamental understandings of what America is” current among American Jews. The issues comprised by “religion and the public square” are the two important spheres where the role of the Jewish community can be researched. In these spheres, the American Jews can evoke, contest and negotiate their conflicting visions of America’s character and destiny. For the sake of ascertaining where American Jews stand on the most important issues of religion and the public square, Elazar reviews, in form of questions, the current problems among American Jews. He focuses on those issues, which have an outstanding importance from the point of the current Judaism.

The first question was whether America is still fundamentally an Enlightenment culture, in spite of its deep background in religion? Is it already by now quite independent of religion such that these ideas of the Enlightenment are universal or rational or self-evident and require no support from religion? The second question is that if America is fundamentally an Enlightenment culture where religion is peripheral rather than central to the generation and maintenance of moral conviction, then where does moral conviction come from and how is it to be sustained in a socially effective way?

The third question is that if American is fundamentally a biblical culture whose basic commitments not only derive from a specifically Jewish and/or Christian ethos, then these values require constant nourishment from believing citizens rooted in those traditions? If “biblicism” is chosen over “enlightenment” then to what extent are these biblical values the mutual property of Jews and Christians? That is, to what extent are they subsumed under a putative “Judeo-Christian tradition” in which both Jews and Christians have an equal and original share in the American project?

If American Jews and Christians are equal partners on religious grounds what are the consequences of that for a Jewish understanding of secularism; of other religious groups? That is, how are the boundaries of openness and exclusivity to be defined? Do all groups have an equal standing such that no culture or religion has any greater affinity with American ideals than any other? (That is, there are no American ideals other than what different American groups empirically hold as ideal. This is the multi-culturalist option.)

Are there American ideals which all groups ought to embrace, albeit in a manner suitable to their own cultural and religious background? (This is the pluralist option.) Are some groups more capable than others of revisioning themselves as Americans and, if so, should all groups follow their lead and conform to a basic patters of assimilation? (This is the melting-pot option.)

The above questions turn on whether there are distinctively American values, ideas or emphases that constitute (or should constitute) the convictions of an American citizen. Do these in fact exist? Did they ever? Should they? What role (if any) should religion play in articulating and sustaining such values? To what extent are the market economy and the state (particularly in the sense of the public schools) providers of value? Or of disvalue? What is the appropriate public (albeit non-governmental) role of religious bodies? What activities are inappropriate for them?

What is the appropriate governmental role vis-à-vis religious bodies? Should government, for example, support religiously sponsored institutions in their role as service providers to the general public? How should provision of services be understood? Should government devolve its own services onto religiously sponsored institutions? Is Christianity, as a moral, social and political force, fundamentally threatening to Jewish life in America? Or, alternatively, is it supportive (perhaps in an unintended way) of Jewish life? Is it neutral or irrelevant? Given the perceived crisis in American Jewish “continuity”, would a general revival of Christianity in the US have positive consequences for Jews and Judaism?

Nevertheless, the life of the Jewish communities is not organized with optimal efficiency within a given people, society or country (e.g. in America), but it comprises – even beyond state boundaries – the life of the Jews living all over the world. Organization and keeping together are old Jewish traditions. Nevertheless, the organizations and systems of relations existing today are extremely developed ones and exceed the traditionally inherited organizational and self-management forms. These new organizations of a higher type already exist for more than a century. In our time, no other ethnical group living in ethnical, religious or other type of dispersion detains such a rich organizational experience that the Jewish communities, should it be in the political, social or cultural sphere.

These organizations are characterized by three properties being in close connection with each other. Firstly, we can mention that all their activities are international, and, from this point, the Jews living in dispersion all over the world constitute a unique transnational organization. Through their organizations, the Jewish organizations are in relation with the inter-state and international organizations of other character, as well as with the international public law and private law regulations. The high level of organization is a common quality feature of all Jewish communities. This is what, in practice, welds them together into an organic unity, in spite of the territorial distances. Already Theodore Herzl put it that such a people, which does not have a president, a government or a well distinguishable public service and public administration system, still can have such representatives, leaders of local organizations, who are able to establish a common politics and safeguarding of interests, can fulfil public administration tasks, and can act as independent actors both in the fields of foreign relations and social life.

No matter how dispersed a world people the Jewry is, it has common needs, interests and values. The satisfaction of these requires a higher degree of organization and keeping together, and demands financial structures for raising the necessary resources. These public service activities are decentralized, since they have to comply with the practical requirements, therefore they continuously change. The Jewry detains even such organizations, which operate according to the basic principles of safeguarding of interests and public security, so they lean to an important extent on the international law and on international institutions. The Jewish communities were the first to realize how great need there is for the so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which, on the other hand, can fulfil public tasks effectively. The so created NGOs were suitable for fulfilling the tasks concerning the security, safeguarding of interests and welfare needs of the given community, for gathering the necessary financial resources and supporting the migration, the free migration over country borders of the given national community.

The emancipation of the European Jewry involved several such conflicts the solution of which were undertaken by Theodore Herzl. He did not agree with the fact that the Jewish communities should live, as a world people, in diaspora, and rejected the total assimilation into the receiving societies. He also opposed the strategy of the socialist world revolution. He did not believe even in the fact that it is possible to solve, with community charity, what he thought to be the fate issue of the Jewish people. As a single solution, he could accept only the creation of an independent Jewish state, which could serve as a solid basis for the annihilation of the conflicts that hit the Jewish people for many thousand years. For this strategic goal, it was necessary to create a world-level Jewish organization, which has authority in all important questions, including the mass emigration of Jews, as well as the creation and protection of settlements.

The task of the Jewish organizations is not only to foster the foreign relations, but they also have to become such democratic institutions, which are suitable for representing, even within the diaspora existence, the political will of the Jewish people, which can be considered a common one. Herzl struggled to attain that the leaders of these organizations should be elected democratically and they should bring their decisions as a body, with common effort. In fact, all this was about that, well before the Jewish State could be established on a determined territory, Theodore Herzl already wanted to create that organization, which was able, right before its territorial establishment, to operate in an organized and politically coordinated way.

The establishment of the Jewish State was essentially an organizational initiative. Such a common effort, which was suitable to put into practice the self-determination of the whole Jewish people. Therefore, Herzl set the goal that the Zionist movement initiated by him should represent, in a recognized way, the Jewish communities living in diaspora all over the world. By this strategy, he wanted to attain that the Jewish people should return to Eretz Israel, that is to that biblical Israel, which may become such a national home of the Jewish people, which is guaranteed also by the international law. By convoking the Jewish World Congress, Herzl managed to organize this Zionist Movement, which the whole Jewish people could consider its own national institution.

An answer to Judaism and Semitism

Anti-Semitism can be interpreted as an answer reaction given to Judaism and Semitism. Kevin MacDonald dealt with this question in his work Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism published by Praeger in 1998. While in his previous work, he analyzed the Judaism (Semitism) on the basis of the evolution theory, in the second volume of his trilogy, he reviews the phenomenae of anti-Semitism. As a social psychologist and anthropologist of the California State University – Long Beach, he asserts that the research of both Judaism and anti-Semitism can be enriched with an evolution theory interpretation.

Anti-Semitism manifested itself as a very strong tendency throughout the long period of the history of mankind, in different eras, societies, under different governments, within different economic systems, and in the presence of religious ideologies rivaling with each other. Several anti-Semite historical events, like the Inquisition operating on the Iberian peninsula or the holocaust experienced in the National-Socialist Germany, took place in the midst of extreme violent actions. Anti-Semitism was frequently characterized by open and conscious racism. The latter makes it necessary, in itself, the utilization of the research methods of the evolution theory.

MacDonald’s book was written when the ethnic cleansing reached its climax during the civil war going on in the disintegrated Yugoslavia. Conflicts of ethnic character took part also in Asia, Middle-East and Africa. And in Europe, in turn, it was the refugee law considered to be too liberal which led to violent acts, for instance in Germany. The racial-ethnic tension is continuously present also in America. In the late 1990-ies, the inhabitants of Los Angeles could experience a large series of violent acts, in which the ethnic origin played an important role.

The message of the book is that Judaism must be determined as a group strategy too, which is characterized by a cultural and genetic separation from the non-Jew society, completed with the competition for the resources, that is for wealth and success, for power, and with many conflicts of interest of other kind. This cultural and genetic separatism, completed with the competition for the resources, is suitable for triggering hate and controversies in the given society. MacDonald gets to the conclusion that the intellectual defense of Judaism (Semitism) and the Jewish theories on anti-Semitism have played a critical role, throughout the whole history, in the maintaining of Judaism as group survival strategy. The Californian scholar dedicates a separate chapter to the analysis of the Jewish self-interest, deception and self-deception in the Jewish historical literature, the elaboration of the Jewish personal identity knowledge, as well as in the Jewish interpretation the relations within the group, or of the relations to the outer groups.

In his analysis, he starts from the theories based upon the current group psychology and group conflicts. He analyzes the anti-Semitism on the basis of the evolution theory approach of the social identity. The final conclusion of Kevin MacDonald’s previous book was that in the traditional societies, up to the modern historical epochs, the Jewish communities formed well visible and impenetrable groups, which separated themselves from the whole of society. To this, it was frequently added the competition for the resources, and other conflicts of interest between the Jews and non-Jews.

According to the theory of social identity, such conditions lead to conflicts as well as to such socio-psychological processes, in which both the Jews and the non-Jews grow negative prejudices about the communities of each other. These prejudices need not to be based upon exact information. These views are characterized by the fact that they usually evaluate their own positively and negatively the group of the outsiders.

MacDonald deals in detail also with the ideology and practice of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism was a well-known phenomenon all long the history in several societies. It was widely spread also in the ancient times, and the clerical formulators and editors of the Old Testament already thought that the increasing opposition of Judaism and Semitism would mean a problem for the Jewry living in diaspora for a long time. Several, theoretically important questions are reoccurring continuously in the anti-Semite writings, among them the Jewish tribal keeping together and cultural separation, the seizing of the economic and cultural power over the non-Jews, and the question of loyalty to other groups of the receiving society.

MacDonald dedicated three chapters to the critical analysis of the anti-Semite movements in the western world. Firstly, he examines closely the institutionalized anti-Semitism occurred in the 4th century in the Roman Empire. He analyzes thoroughly the activity of the Inquisition created in the Iberian peninsula, as well as the anti-Semitism of the National-Socialist system developing in Germany between 1933-1945. The common denominator of these three movements is that the cohesion of the non-Jewish communities is increasingly realized and culminates in the sharp opposition to the Judaism. It can be debated whether all three movements can be considered a proper answer to Judaism as an extremely successful life strategy.

MacDonald raises theoretical and practical arguments to the fact that the powerful group life strategies create, as counter-actions, such group strategies in the opposing communities, which, in many respects, can be considered the mirror images of that group strategy against which they are struggling. After reviewing those Jewish defense strategies, which wanted to limit the effects of anti-Semitism in different epochs, he states that the Jewish communities managed to develop extremely elastic strategies in order to decrease the effects of anti-Semitism. MacDonald mentions the example of the so-called “secret Jews” (crypto-Jews, crypsis), who, in the period of their persecution and when the community control strengthened within the Jewish community, banned, with severe regulations, that kind of Jewish attitudes, which were supposed to trigger anti-Semitism.

MacDonald also deals with the fact how the Jewish communities tried to create advantageous situations for themselves, by lobbying, financial devices, favours done for the political leaders of the receiving society, building personal relations and fulfilling special tasks. He lists those various methods by which they created a favourable image about them, by keeping up relationships. This included the obtaining of the support of non-Jews for Jewish goals, as well as the positive influencing of the common view about Jews, even with censuring or the propagation of denigrating materials. Part of this was the financing and spreading of such scientific works that served Jewish interests.

The rationalization of Judaism proved to be efficient in the science of history, as well as in the elaboration of religious teachings and of the Jewish theory of Judaism. The Jewish religious and secular ideologies can be formed very plastically, so they are suitable for serving the direct needs of the positive self-orientation of the Jewish community. These ideologies have an advantageous effect on the increasing of group fidelity among the Jewish communities, and are also suitable for creating a positive image on Judaism among the non-Jews.

The rationalization of Judaism, nevertheless, also includes the deception of others and the self-deception. The latter one touches several questions, including the personal identity consciousness, the causes and the volume of anti-Semitism, the features characterizing the whole of the Jewish community, their role in the political and cultural life, both in the traditional and the present-day societies. MacDonald thinks that the Jews, especially those who strongly identify with the Jewish way of life and order of values, are relatively more inclined to self-deception – leaving out or explaining out for themselves the negative information and evaluations concerning themselves or their community. He raises the question whether the Judaism can still be considered a determining life strategy, since the number of mixed marriages is increasing, especially among the Jews living in diaspora. MacDonald’s opinion is that these new phenomenae do not endanger the historical survival and the successful development of the Jewish communities.


Is there Bolshevism without Jews?

Why is there a Jewish Question?

The Jews want to separate themselves from others in all conditions, since this is the only way that they can stand Jews. For us, the Jewish question is primarily a problem of an ideological character. Ideology is not only a system of ideas, because it always serves a certain power. The Jewish ideology serves the Jewish power, its essence is the chosenness, the supremacy and the double standard. According to this ideology, the Jews are “God’s chosen people”. The second statement of this ideology is that all the other peoples are not equal with the chosen people. This was formulated in October 2010 by Orthodox Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who died in October 2013, as follows: “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.” All this means that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews. This unusually sincere formulation by this distinguished spiritual leader was essentially the repetition of that dogma from the Talmud according to which the non-Jews, that is the gentiles, the Goyim are nothing but biped animals. The funeral of Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, was attended, in October 2013, also by the top political leaders of Israel, headed by the head of state and the prime minister. An important basic thesis of the Jewish ideology is that the Jews have not only the right, but also the duty to rule over the other peoples.

The ideological theses are built tightly one upon the other, and they result from each other. The formulators of this ideology appeared three thousand years ago were those – certainly talented – people, belonging to the order of priests, who initially came from among the Levites, scribes and Pharisees, and then from among the authors of the Rabbinic literature and the Talmud and Kabbalah. The religious and political leading groups were aware of the fact that, if they want to give impetus to their decisions, they have to do it in a religious dimension. The religious ideas and commands increased not only the authority of the Levites and their successors, but also strengthened that people, which, in this way, could consider itself a chosen one, and which considers that is allowed to privileges against all other peoples.

In the 21st century, there are many people, even among those who consider themselves Jews, who broke from religion and became agnostics or atheists. Therefore, “being a chosen people” does not mean chosenness by God any more. So, God’s chosen people became “Nature’s chosen people”, or simply the “chosen people”. Even in our days, it is very easy to convince somebody about how advantageous is for him to belong to such a human community, which overcomes the other communities, peoples and nations in terms of intelligence, talent and success. Belonging to the chosen people is a privilege, which is not given to everybody. The Jewish communities living in different countries form a state within the state, and accept among them as full members only those who already belong to them genetically, ethnically, from the point of blood. They keep strict evidence about that, concerning to their own laws, who can be considered Jew and who cannot. When the Jewish communities separate, in fact they close out from among themselves all those who they do not consider Jews. This means that they manifest a strictly excluding behaviour. At the same time, they expect the peoples hosting them not to keep evidence of the fact that they are Jews, and they should be accepted in all organizations with the same conditions as the persons belonging to the host nation. They condemn the smallest limitation of the emancipation and integration as a closing-out. But not only the majority can close out the minority, also the minority can close out the majority. Therefore, in our days, the maximally organized Jewish communities already form a quasi state within the state the citizens of which they are, detaining such privileges, which the average citizens of the host nation cannot detain.

All this is considered to be a normal state by the Zionist Jews, and even those Jews who have broken with Judaism for a long time, do not renounce to the opportunity to obtain privileges, surplus rights, by separating themselves from all others. Naturally, the non-Jews, the Goyim, consider themselves human beings, and each of them responds, in his own way, to the challenges addressing them. It should be, nevertheless, taken into account that the Jewish ideology is not simply a system of ideas or a system of wrong ideas, but also such a long-term strategy, which rests upon solid material bases. With the help of the money system, a part of the Jewish people could repeatedly reach to be maintained by other peoples, through the commerce and money loaning on interest. Nevertheless, this did not satisfy them, but, as soon as they had the opportunity, they made an attempt, again and again, at obtaining more and more power, more and more wealth. A part of the Jewry is convinced that all this is due to the Jewish people, and they are entitled to detain the absolute power over the whole world.

If we concretize the Zionist world strategy, we can identify it as a global strategy striving at seizing the world hegemony. This strategy can only be performed successfully if the majority of mankind does not get knowledge of it. For this sake, the Zionists essentially waged a war on all who know about their behaviour and analyze and judge it, as well as understand the facts on their world strategy and make it public. The international Jewry created the bolshevism, and the same power disintegrated later the Soviet Union. And now it is the turn of the United States. By now, the Zionist money power world elite has managed to draw also the political system of the United States under control. Since they obtained in time the control over the printed and electronic mass-media, they hold in hand the influencing of the public opinion. In America, the Anti-Defamation League or the B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant), that is the determining Jewish organizations are those institutions, which demand the most vehemently the criminalization of the so-called “hate speech” and its punishment with severe sanctions.

It is important to emphasize that, when we speak about Jews, we do not mean all the persons who call themselves Jews, but the organized Jewry and its collective consciousness, which, on the other hand, delimits its goals and determines its behaviour. We keep in mind primarily those Jewish organizations, in the mentality of which the Jewish supremacism, the Jewish superiority and the preservation of their obtained prerogatives are determining. The organized Jewry, as a collectivity, represents that specific Jewish ideology one of the forms of appearance of which is the Zionism. The representatives of the Jewish supremacy are frequently called racists. This is an inexact term, since the Jews do not represent a separate race, and if they propagate the racist separation, they can be listed at the most among the racists propagating the superiority of the white man.

The analysis of the ideology of the organized Jewry is done by Kevin MacDonald, professor of the California State University – Long Beach, in his work titled The Culture of Critique, in which he tries to find an explanation to the question what role did the organized Jewry play in the intellectual and political movements of the 20th century. The book, published in 1998, gets to the final conclusion that, with the help of the intellectual movements of the previous century, which were mostly established and controlled by the organized Jewry, the international Jewry managed to basically change the European culture, the European societies, and to ruin the self-confidence of the western man. These movements were, consciously or instinctually, created to enhance the more efficient enforcement of the common interests of Jewry. Of course, all this was made public for the non-Jews as if it was all about universal movements, affecting the whole mankind. The ideas propagated in this way influenced in a determining way the political and social relations of the Euro-Atlantic area. They enhanced to a great extent the assertion of the Jewish interests, while they strongly prejudiced the long-term interests of the non-Jewish societies.

The issue of MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique was preceded by the publishing of his books A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and its Discontents. Both books were published by the famous Praeger Publishing House in 1994 and 1998. The three-volume work makes an attempt to review the historical role of Jewry, primarily from socio-biological point of view. It starts from the point that Judaism is essentially the uniquely successful survival strategy of the organized Jewry, which competes with the survival strategies of other peoples or ethnic groups. The conscience of specialty, particularity is strongly embedded in the community consciousness of Jewry, and this separated them, both socially and genetically, from the other peoples. The second volume of the trilogy follows the history of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews, and gets to the final conclusion that the primary cause of anti-Semitism is the commercial and intellectual dominancy of the Jews in the non-Jewish societies, as well as the fact that they refuse the assimilation, that is the melting into the host peoples.

The third volume of the trilogy, The Culture of Critique attempts to analyze what goals followed the organized Jewry, when it destructively criticized and radically altered the European culture. The learned author inspected closely primarily the Marxism and the psychoanalysis elaborated by Freud, the philosophical and sociological teachings of the Frankfurt School, and the anthropology of Franz Boas (1858-1942). MacDonald deals separately with the question why the organized Jewry supported unanimously the forced spreading of multiculturalism and the mass immigration from the third world into America. According to his standpoint, the Jews supported this policy primarily for the assertion and enforcement of the common Jewish interests, although they tried to create the impression that no specific Jewish interest linked them either to the multiculturalism or the immigration. MacDonald does not object to their commitment to their people, to their ethnocentrism, but to the fact that the organized Jewry is not sincere. They declare that they keep in mind the common future of mankind, the public welfare, the common interest, but, in fact, they enforce their own particular interests, at the detriment of the majority. While they proclaim the fraternity among people, they consistently undermine the ethnical self-identity of the non-Jews, that community connectedness, which helped the Jews to their successful survival, with the help of the powerful group solidarity. And this, which, for them, was one of the main tools of survival, they declare immoral regarding other peoples.

Separatism on one hand, interbreeding on the other hand

One of the most consequent methods for the enforcement of interests of the organized Jewry is when they force the peoples to accept the cult of pluralism and diversity, while they exempt themselves from these. Since the 19th century, they organized such movements, which did everything to discredit such basic values of the non-Jew societies like love of the homeland, loyalty to the own people or nation, basic norms of the Christian moral, homogeneity of the society and sexual self-discipline. At the same time, in their own communities, so also in Israel, they support exactly those institutions, which they totally reject in the non-Jew societies. The local Jewish communities are characterized by their strong group ties. This conspicuously tight group cohesion is not remarkable in such a social environment in which the roots of the racial and cultural togetherness are weak. The Jews most definitely reject the assimilation, since in this case they would cease to exist as Jews. The total rejection of assimilation was one of the preconditions of the survival, through many millenniums, of the Jewish people as a specific community.

Survival has always been an exciting question for those peoples, which had a strong national identity consciousness, and so their leaders took the effort to get to know closely the adaptation techniques of the Jewish communities. Following the rejecting answer given to assimilation, the Jewry became interested in diluting the national identity consciousness of the host peoples and in weakening the national communities. They reckoned that the preservation of the Jewish identity is in greater security if the similar identity of the surrounding non-Jews is weak. The American Jewry, for instance, enforces the cultural tolerance because they know it, from their own historical experience, that the Jews feel secure in such societies, which accept the most various forms of behaviour, the different religions and ethnic groups. This mosaic-like society favours the minorities of different kinds. This is why most of the Jews accept, for instance, homosexuality, since, in their view, they also form a minority. Therefore, the decisive thing is that the various minorities should polarize the majority, in order to weaken its cohesion. The behaviour of the organized Jewry is not determined by the fact that they represent a liberal standpoint in several social, political, legal and ethic questions. The more polarized is a society, the more diluted it is, the weaker the national togetherness conscience of its members is. The Jewish communities feel more secure in such an environment. Therefore, they present the particular Jewish goals in such a way to deceive the non-Jew host society and to get their support. The Jewish communities are strongly convinced that homosexuality is detrimental, as well as several other social deviancies too. But if they weaken the host societies, they are useful for the particular Jewish interests, so it is practical to support them.

Earl Raab, the former executive director of Brandeis University’s Institute of Jewish Advocacy, said that the white population of European origin would be a minority in the United States of America by the middle of the 21st century. He thought that it would not be possible any more to create such an Aryan national party, which could take over the power in America, and so it would not be possible to establish an anti-Jewish system. It is interesting that Earl Raab was ready to sacrifice the American culture of traditional European origin in order to prevent an imaginary situation threatening the Jews. Earl Raab started from the point that the existence of Jewry as a well-separated community must be maintained at any rate, even if the number and influence of the non-Jew whites might decrease. According to Raab, it was possible to polarize and atomize the population to such an extent that the situation became irreversible. Therefore the destiny of the American culture of European origin was sealed.

Franz Boas, the anthropologist of Jewish origin, immigrated to America from Germany. His students and disciples, with two exceptions, were all Jews and detained a strong Jewish conscience of identity. The Jewish conscience of identity and the enforcement of Jewish interests – especially in terms of cultural pluralism, serving as a pattern for the western societies – became the “invisible subject” of the American science of anthropology.

By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its Executive Board, and by 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by them. From this domineering situation did they spread their view that not the race and biology are determining, but the environment. They have totally transformed the anthropology, so that it should give arguments to the unlimited immigration, integration and mixed marriages. They argued that all races have identical abilities and so the failures of the non-whites, of the coloured people, are caused by their oppression by the whites. Since, according to them, the environment is determining, the alteration of the environment in all respects can put an end to inequality. This Boasian ideology served as a base for the starting of many costly and prodigal government programmes. The whole civil rights movement can be taken as the victory of the Boasian thinking. Since all races are equal, the separation between races is immoral. If the whites preserve their community togetherness, it will make the separation of the Jewish communities more visible. Therefore the American organized Jewry started the anti-segregation movement.

When, in 1917, Marcus Garvey, the leader of the black separation movement, visited the headquarters of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), he found there so many whites that he turned over and ran out of the building, saying that it was a white organization. The organized Jewry played a determining role in triggering the civil right movements. MacDonald quotes from a jurist of the American Jewish Congress, who told that the laws adopted under the pressure of the civil right movement were in fact written in the offices of the Jewish organizations by Jewish employees working there. And then these bills were raised to the power of laws by Jewish law-makers or non-Jew representatives and senators being under the pressure of Jewish electors.

The anthropological school being under the leadership of Boas insisted on the integration among races and the equality of races, what is more, it enforced it by all available means. In this way, the American culture homogenized too much, became hypocrite, as well as emotionally and esthetically oppressing, especially in sexual terms. This programme tried to persuade the Americans that, against the western culture crippling the man, the natural human beings of the third world live in a much more attractive way. Here the essential thing was to criticize, in all possible ways, the western societies, the culture of the West, while to praise everything that was primitive. The anthropologists belonging to the Boasian school, for instance, did not mention how much the primitive cultures preserved cruelty and other barbarian features. If these still got in the centre of attention, they would qualify it the contamination of the declining West. All this served the strategy to undermine the self-confidence of the western societies, and, loosening their communities, to put them under the pressure of the third world peoples.

The United States, which, after the nearly total extermination of the native Indian population, developed according to the traditions of the European culture, in our days, as a consequence of the immigration policy in effect, loses its European character in an accelerated pace. The white culture of European origin had to be discredited, and, for this purpose, they weakened the natural solidarity between white people, and the liquidation of the European cultural heritage, the loosening of the ties to the Christian traditions is going on in an accelerated pace even in the present.

We have already mentioned several times how an important role the Frankfurt School of Social Sciences established in Germany played in this process. What then happened in Weimar Germany, is going on now on world scale and is repeated in global size. After the National Socialists got to power, the determining personalities of the Frankfurt School emigrated to the United States The Californian Berkeley University became one of their centres. The research done here was led by Max Horkheimer, in which Theodor Wiesegrund Adorno, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse took part. Horkheimer did not make, at all, a secret of the fact that the goal of their researches is of a party politics character, and they are going to apply the results directly in the propaganda activity.

Adorno published his work The Authoritarian Personality in 1950, as a part of the series entitled Studies in Prejudice. This series included also such studies which dealt with the relation between anti-Semitism and emotional disorders. The Authoritarian Personality had an important effect on the current intellectual life, partly because the American Jewish Committee sponsored it to a great extent, and partly because the Jewish university professors zealously studied and taught it. Adorno wanted to prove that all close ties to any groups are the sign of a kind of psychic disorder. All manifestations, from the love of homeland, through the religious affiliation, to the bounds to the family (and even the ties to the race), can be regarded the symptoms of the degenerate and dangerous authoritarian personality.

Making any differentiation between the different groups must be regarded a prejudice, even the group loyalties, including the closest family ties. On the basis of this, the historian Christopher Lasch, who published several socio-critical works, wrote that prejudice can only be removed from the American society if the Americans were subjected to a collective psychotherapy.

After a two-decade research work, MacDonald got to the conclusion that exactly this kind of group loyalty, the unconditional observation of traditions and the conscious enforcement of diversity is the central issue of self-identity. And all this, which made it possible for the Jews to assure their survival for several millenniums, was labeled as a mental disease in the respect of non-Jews by Horkheimer and Adorno. This is very similar to what was applied in the Soviet Union at that time against the differently thinkers. Everybody who had a different political opinion was considered a psychopath. The members of the Frankfurt School have never criticized or even made the subject of their research the group identity of the Jews. They examined this question exclusively in the respect of non-Jews.

The double standard is obvious also here. That group development strategy applied by Judaism in the respect of non-Jews was described by them as a syndrome of pathological manifestations. For the same Jewish intellectuals, also the anti-Semitism was the manifestation of a psychic disease. They claimed that the Christian self-denial, especially the suppression of the sexual instincts is the cause of the hatred against the Jews. The leading personalities of the Frankfurt School zealously welcomed the psychoanalysis, and they formulated such a soaring wisdom that the so-called Oedipus’ complex, the ambivalent relation to the father, as well as the anal-sadistic relationship in the early childhood are all irrevocable, hereditary features of the anti-Semites.

The Frankfurt School, on one hand, ridiculed the patriotism and the racial identity conscience, while, on the other hand praised promiscuity, i.e. the random sexual life without any choice and the misery of the gypsies. The successful countercultural movements of the 1960s found their intellectual expression and the enemy to be defeated in the “authoritarian personality”. This included idealization of the revolt against parents, favouring of sexual contacts requiring little effort, disparaging of the efforts made toward social ascension, as well as the contempt and ridiculing of the social status, the family, the Christian faith and the patriotism.

This countercultural revolt proved to be successful in qualifying the traditional national and racial bounds as psychic disease and labeling them. The French Jacques Derrida, a Jewish thinker, wrote about this: “The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants”.

The basic goal was to persuade the inhabitants of European origin of the United States to regard their own concern about their demographic and cultural decay irrational, a symptom of psychopathology. The cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School proved to be successful. Those who opposed the removal of white people from their previous status, were routinely qualified as psychically disturbed, hatred-stirring persons. When the whites attempted to defend their group interests, they were qualified psychically disabled. The ideology of ethnocentrism became a variant of a psychic disease, which qualification was spread by such a group, which, in the course of its long history, was, incontestably, the most ethnocentric human group among the cultural communities existing in the world up to now.

It is the most natural thing for the Jews to enhance, with all means, the mass immigration into North America. The Jews find the diversity extremely comfortable, although they do not refer primarily to this, but to the fact that the United States and Canada is open to all persecuted persons, of a similar religion, coming from any part of the world. The Jews are the only group of people which has always encouraged mass immigration. Other organizations of European ethnic origin have also made efforts in this direction from time to time, but this cannot be compared to that persistent effort, which the Jewish communities made to keep the borders open to all immigrants. There were sharp debates within the Jewish community about several questions, but they always agreed in the issue of immigration.

Israel Zangwill, the author of the play The Melting Pot, noted, already in 1908, that “There is only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses, and all other devices that make of the population of our planet not a co-operating civilization but a mutual irritation society.” Israel Zangwill, at the same time, was a militant Zionist and definitely opposed the intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews.

The so-called Statue of Liberty (exact name: Liberty Enlightening the World), erected on the small island in the south of New York, was the present of the French people, more exactly of the French freemasons, who expressed in this way their respect for the American political traditions. Emma Lazarus, a Jewish lady-poet, wrote a sonnet in 1893, in which she successfully transformed the statue of liberty into the symbol of immigration. A few decades later, the lines of the poem were engraved on a plaque, within the pedestal of the statue, in which Lazarus says that the Statue of Liberty welcomes and hugs those who “yearn to breathe free”, the poor, who were refused the “teeming shore”.

A couple of lines of Emma Lazarus’s poem The New Colossus were also engraved on a plaque mounted on the wall of the Arrivals hall of New York’s Kennedy Airport. But this airport version left out the words “Give me … your huddled masses”.

During his long research work, MacDonald realized that the Jews support with improbable arguments their allegation that the real strength of America consists of ethnic diversity for a long time. In 1948, the American Jewish Committee tried to persuade the American legislative assembly that the Americanism is that spirituality, behind which the traditional benevolent attitude of the United States can be found, and which, by now, is extended to the members of all ethnics, all races, all religions and all nations. Nevertheless, according to the Californian professor, “In fact, Americanism, as a specific American system of traditions, has never existed”.

In a hearing held on immigration in 1952, the representatives of the American Jewish Committee declared that the experiences comprising the whole United States have undoubtedly proved that the strength of America lies in the diversity of its population. In that time, the immigration legislation in effect still explicitly served the goal to maintain the majority of the European-rooted white population. In 1965, the immigration legislation was basically changed. Few people know that the substituted new laws transformed radically the ethnic structure of the United States. MacDonald asserts that the demographic transformation was the goal of the organized Jewry from the very beginning. Earlier the Jewry favoured the immigration from England, France and Canada. The Jewish groups were the loudest to protest against the separatism and independence of the French-speaking Canadian region Québec.

On the other hand, in the case of the Australian Jewry, the situation is quite different. The Jewry of the fifth continent was heading those efforts the goal of which was to change the “white Australia” policy of the governments there. In its editorial, the paper Australian Jewish Democrat wrote that the strengthening of an Australia that favours the multicultural and ethnic diversity is the most efficient policy against anti-Semitism. According to the author of the article, on the day when the chief governor of Australia will be a Chinese Australian, he will be sure about the fact that he can live freely as a Jewish Australian.

As we have already mentioned, Earl Raab was thinking in a similar way with the Australian Jew journalist. The former executive director of Brandeis University’s Institute of Jewish Advocacy was also on the opinion that the Jews are interested in sacrificing the traditional culture, the national cohesion and self-identity consciousness in order to defend the specifically Jewish interests.

How did the relationship between the organized Jewry and the political left develop?

It is well-known that a considerable part of the Jewry declares itself as pertaining to the leftist movements and political trends. According to MacDonald, it was historically understandable that the organized Jewry supported those movements which openly propagated the necessity of ousting the existing political systems. Following the emancipation of the Jewry, certain organized Jewish communities had to face resistance from the part of the non-Jew elites. They felt that they met such competitors who seriously threatened their social

Since the Jewry came from abroad, from outside in their target countries, and separated itself, in many respects, from the receiving societies and the power relations governing in them, the members of the Jewry became revolutionaries relatively easily. The leftist commitment of the Jews was frequently motivated also by the hope that communism could be an effective tool in the struggle against anti-Semitism. The establishment of a universal society could effectively enhance the liquidation of that still existing coherence among the non-Jews, which, if stays powerful, could cause, again and again, the exclusion from the majority of the Jewish communities arriving in the societies from outside. Nevertheless, the universal ideologies apply the principle of equal judgment only to the non-Jews. All these universal ideologies implicitly include that the equal judgment does not apply to the separating Jewish communities.

If the non-Jews accept the universal ideology, it could, in its developed status, even result in the fact that they would not regard, at all, the Jews as a separate social category, while the Jews, among them, in a hidden and implicit way, can further maintain the consciousness and binds of the powerful Jewish solidarity.

One of the continuously persisting questions is what specific reason might the Jewry have had to support the movement of the Bolsheviks and to take part in the ousting of the Czar’s system. The Jewry that lived in Russia, on the territory designed for them by the government, claimed several injuries, grievances against the Czarist system, the ruling Russian elite. The western public opinion regarded the Czarist Russia an anti-Semite state, where anti-Jewish pogroms take place from time to time. Compared to this, the Soviet Union being under Bolshevik rule proved to be the promised land for the Jews, in which the state anti-Semitism was banned. On the other hand, the Bolshevik dictatorship did everything for the annihilation of Christianity, while it opened all possibilities of career for some of the Jews. The Bolsheviks propagated the classless society because, in it, the separated Jewish communities would not draw upon themselves the distinguishing attention of the society. The economic version of Marxism taught that the conflicts are of not ethnical, but much more of economic character, therefore many Jews sincerely believed that the Bolshevik system would mean the end of anti-Semitism.

The mainstream science of history even in our days does not acknowledge the fact that the supervision of the Jewish communities organized on world scale is done by the super-rich banker dynasties of mostly Jewish origin. These banker dynasties fought a long struggle in order to obtain the control over the money systems of England, Europe and the United States. When they met obstacles in doing this, one of the possibilities of solving this proved to be to divide the United States, this huge and dynamically developing country, into two parts, and, by tuning the conflicts between them, to create those internal changes, which, by keeping the two states in check, will make it possible for these banker dynasties to control the money system of both.

The relevant historical facts can be researched, but the mainstream historians are not really willing to deal with it. Instead, they are forcing that the war between North and South in the United States was waged for the sake of the liberation of the black slaves. And they usually do not say a word about the international money cartel that prepared, started and directed the civil war. This is important from the point of our topic because the international money cartel being angry with the Czarist system since Napoleon’s wars has made attempts several times to overthrow it. With the cooperation of the freemasons and anarchists, the agents of the money power over the states have committed, in series, attempts against Czars and other members of the dynasty. The money cartel got furious when, on the request of Abraham Lincoln, the Czar sent both his Baltic Sea and Pacific fleets to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United States. The aim was to prevent the navy of the British Empire, operating under the hegemony of the money cartel, from intervening in the civil war.

The international money cartel had other offenses either. For instance, concerning Russia, for the fact that they did not manage to indebt it as they planned, and, in this way, they did not manage to draw the money system of the Czarist Russia under their direct control, although they made several attempts to it. So the even internationally organized Jewish power had several reasons to give an enormous support to the Bolsheviks to overthrow the Czarist system. In our days, we can duly support with proofs that the execution of the Czar’s family was ordered by Jacob Schiff, a leading banker of New York, who was, from the beginning, one of the main funders of the Bolshevik takeover.

Following the World War I, after the bankrupt economic Marxism, the cultural Marxism gained more and more ground. The main goal of the cultural Marxism is the transformation, fragmentation of that European culture, which stands on two giant pillars: the Greek-Roman high culture and the Christianity. The Jewish communists propagated the atheism and the solidarity of the world’s workers, not only in Soviet Russia, but also elsewhere. In spite of this, they were very careful so that, no matter how much the proletarians of the world united, the consciousness of the Jewish self-identity, the Jewish solidarity should persist efficiently. Lenin, who had only one Jewish grandparent out of the four, approved the maintaining of the Jewish identity, even during the rule of communism.

As for America, in 1946, the Communist Party of the United States of America adopted a resolution advocating the continuation of the Jewish people as an ethnic entity within socialist societies. Communism wanted to unify the world, with the help of the international proletariat, so that there should not be borders, there should not be neither national states, nor different religions any more. The Jews, nevertheless, were strongly convinced that, in this world system, there will be a secure place for the preservation of the separating Jewish group identity. According to the officially propagated ideology, all humans are brothers of each other. Nevertheless, in the states pertaining to the Soviet sphere of interest, only very few Jews lost their specific Jewish identity, and most of them preserved it all long the Soviet system.

Charles Rappoport, the Russia-born French communist leader, was on the opinion, which otherwise was also written on his tomb as an epitaph, that Socialism without freedom is not socialism, freedom without socialism is not freedom.” Well, he was who said that “The Jewish people is the bearer of the idea of the unity and coherence of mankind in the history of the world. The disappearance of the Jewish people would signal the death of mankind. The final transformation of the man into a beast.” This highly educated Jewish intellectual, speaking several languages, who was elected to the Steering Committee of the French Communist Party in 1920, attributed such a distinctive role to the Jewry, which is incompatible with the unity and coherence of the mankind.

When it turned out about Stalin, who behaved like a chameleon for a long time, that he was in fact an anti-Semite, the Jewry started to move away from communism. As, in the anti-Semite Czarist system, the Jews played a leading role in the revolutionary movements, also in the Soviet Union, gradually becoming anti-Semite either, more and more Jews became dissidents, people of another way of thinking, and confronted the national Bolshevism. The situation was the same in the communist systems being under the hegemony of the Soviet power, which, on the other hand, were led, to a considerable extent, by communist Jews. So, for instance, the majority of the Polish communist party spoke Yiddish better than Polish. The Polish communists insisted strongly on the preservation of their Jewish identity. When the communist system fell, lots of them gave up their Polish identity and emigrated to Israel.

Nearly all studies or books dealing with this topic mention the fact that most of the leaders of the communist Hungarian Soviet Republic led by Béla Kun (95% according to some sources) were Jews. In 1945, Stalin assigned deliberately the governing of Hungary to Muscovite Jewish communists. He was convinced of the fact that Mátyás Rákosi, Ernő Gerő, József Révai and Mihály Farkas would execute all his orders. The revolution that burst out in October 1956, in fact, wanted to achieve something that was written on the tomb of Charles Rappoport and we have already quoted it above. The Hungarians wanted freedom and national independence, keeping the social justice, the social rights, the national solidarity and the defense of common interests and values. They revolted against the police state of the communist dictatorship, but not in order to be the debt slaves of the money rule dictatorship. Above everything, they wanted to be let alone, finally, by the “world-improving” invaders, so that the fate should allow them, at least once, to arrange the affairs of their own country themselves, and the Hungarians, finally, should control the Hungarians, without the tutorship of aliens.

János Kádár became a powerful communist dictator by betraying his own country. Several communist Jews were there in his entourage, who, towards the west, even tried to accuse the revolutionaries of 1956 of anti-Semitism, in order to win, in this way, the support of the western governments being under the influence of the international Jewry and freemasonry. These governments left the Hungarian revolution in the lurch, but, under the pressure of their own public opinion, declined to recognize the procurators of Moscow as the legitimate representatives of Hungary too quickly. In this respect, the network of the money rule world elite could operate only carefully.

Going on with the analysis of the Jewish question, in the United States, we can find mostly Jews in the hard core of the communists and in the society Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). These people considered themselves revolutionaries, they were atheists and had such a universalist world view, which they could totally harmonize with their Jewish conscience of identity.

In his trilogy, MacDonald quotes from the study of an American leftist intellectual, which relates about the results of a survey. It turned out that “many communists, for instance, declare that they would never marry such a person who is not a leftist. When the Jews were asked whether they could marry a non-Jew or not, many of them became insecure, because they were shocked by this question and they found it difficult to give an answer to it. As an explanation, they added that they have always found normal to marry a Jew.” This reveals that their commitment to the Jewry was deeper than their commitment to the left.

Many of the American Jews broke with the communism, when it became more and more evident that Moscow started to be nationalist. The last drop in the glass was when, following the 1967 war, the Soviet Union broke off diplomatic relations with Israel. An SDS activist formulated his position in this way: “If I have to choose between the Jewish cause and the anti-Israeli SDS, I will certainly choose the Jewish cause. If they are building barricades, I will fight on the Jewish side.”

The Bolsheviks – first of all the Trotskysts propagating the permanent revolution – wanted to achieve the permanent revolution, i.e. the permanent civil war, until the proletarians of the world will win and will establish the communist world system, the Bolshevik global state. In the last decades of the 20th century, these radical leftists suddenly transformed themselves into rightist neo-conservatives. From the extreme left they flew over to the extreme right. Instead of the permanent revolution they propagated the permanent war for the victory of the global democracy, for the new world order, for the democratic global government. The essence is that the societies, the country borders should be in permanent movement, because the revolutions, the civil wars, the local wars, the world wars all make it possible the gradual achievement of the world rule strategy of the super elite. So, the American neo-conservatives achieved a radical change on the surface, when they were not propagating a permanent proletarian revolution, but a permanent war for the spreading of the democracy on world scale. They did all this to make it possible the establishment of the new world order that will finalize the rule of the global financial elite, of the global world government, that is the essence should not change.

If this world strategy serves the interests of the Jewish people, organized as a global people, and of the super-rich bankers, this apparently great change – the transubstantiation from radical Trotskysts into radical neo-conservative democrats – in fact leaves the Jewish identity of these persons intact, which is their most essential common property. So, for instance, former leftists broke with this ideology, because it turned against Israel. They reinterpreted the American conservativism, created the neo-conservative movement of the “neocons”, which already firmly supports Israel. Nevertheless, the neo-conservatives are also committed partisans of the immigration, and they pushed out the white Americans attached to their racial identity from the conservative political right, deemed to be proper and correct.

If such complicated and delicate questions are discussed like a person’s personal commitment, consciousness of identity, the motivation of the given person must always be taken into account. Any human being, should it be a Jew or a non-Jew, has the right to declare himself a good-willing, honest and upright person. Even if the Jewish communities, following their traditions, declare themselves the chosen people, the torch-bearers of the nations, one cannot deny the motifs of goodwill and helpfulness from them. If the self-image of certain Jewish communities includes the support of the oppressed, we must acknowledge it. If, on the other hand, the mending of the world, the enforcement of the social justice always goes together with the weakening of the traditions of non-Jewish communities, the disintegration of their community solidarity, one can raise a just and funded question whether the organized Jewry does it consciously and deliberately, or it is only an undesired side-effect of their good-willing endeavours.

The one who gets immersed in these questions, must recognize that a lot of our Jewish fellow human beings support, the most sincerely, the liberal freedoms, and it is imaginable that they mislead even themselves to a certain extent, since “The best deceivers are those who deceive even themselves.”

The essence here is that the Jews being busy with the enforcement of Jewish interests must persuade firstly themselves. If, for instance, a Jew urged on that the population of America should be less white, maybe convinced himself about the fact that the United States would obtain advantage if it becomes a colourful and multicultural mosaic society, composed of several cultures. If this Jew managed to convince himself about this, it is obvious that he can convince others about it easier. Lots of Jewish fellow human beings of ours are perhaps not really aware of the fact that to what extent is their Jewish identity a determining part of their personality, which then, finally, determines also their political views.

Abraham Joshua Heschel, the Poland-born American Rabbi, related about how he was surprised during the Israeli-Arab war of 1967 (June 5-10 1967), when he stood on the side of Israel, instinctively and passionately: “I simply did not know how Jew I was.” This is a considerable explanation from the part of a man who, in his lifetime, was taken as one of the greatest Jewish spiritual leaders. It seems that the Jews nourish and foster quite strongly the feeling of attachment to their own people. The theologian Eugene Borowitz formulated this that the majority of the Jews declare of themselves that they detain such a “friend or enemy determining” sensor which makes it possible for him to reveal the presence of a Jew, even if he disguises himself strongly. Here the “friend or enemy” distinction is considerable.

Several Jews assert about themselves that they have already broken with their Jewish identity. These declarations are not really convincing. In the Jewish publications, we can read a lot about the power and influence of the American Jews. They use such formulations, which they immediately qualify as anti-Semite if used also by non-Jews. Joseph Sobran, the former famous editorial writer of the magazine National Review (of which the writer of the present lines was a subscriber for years) said that “the Jews want to stay Jews among themselves, but they reject if they are considered Jews by the non-Jews. They want to enforce their separate interests in such a way that, in the meantime, they would keep the appearance that they do not detain such separate interests.” Several intellectual movements initiated and controlled by Jews were successful because they managed to keep their Jewish character secret.

If the orthodox Jews had initiated and urged, as Jews, the multiculturalism, the mass immigration or the movements against authoritarian personalities, all these would have received a different support surely. The Jewish political strategy was not formulated during the theoretical foundation of these movements, and the non-Jew intellectuals, who accepted and adopted these theories, did not view them as theories that are part of the cultural rivaling between Jewish and non-Jewish intellectuals. The specifically Jewish political strategy stayed hidden. The Jewish initiators of these movements also used, for camouflage, the technique by which they made such non-Jewish “front men” execute their Jewish strategy, who were selected and put into position by them. It was obvious also in the case of the Communist Party of the United States, when they selected non-Jews in the positions of top leaders. Part of them saw through this and resigned.

It is a difficult question to reveal the hidden motifs. If someone chooses such a political goal, which unambiguously refers to the fact that it would not serve the common interests of the organized Jewry, this can already prove the fact that the mentioned person has broken away from his Jewish identity. Even if there is no such a conflict with the Jewish interests, there may be tactical differences between the different groups of Jewish identity. The different groups of the organized Jewry usually push aside the argument about tactical questions, when they have to rise up jointly against the non-Jew, white Americans. Such questions can be, for instance, the immigration, the preferential treatment of different minorities, the anti-discrimination laws and the forced integration. These are not in the interest of the Europe-rooted, white Americans. Still, lots of white Americans support them, and this proves that they have already lost the consciousness of their racial solidarity to a great extent.

Even according to many researchers of the Jewish question, it is possible that, as a consequence of the conflicts over centuries, there are Jews who hate the non-Jewish society and strives consciously at its destruction. It can be proved that there are such Jewish groups which want to demolish the existing power structure, established by non-Jews, because they deem it to be anti-Semite. In the Jewish history, from the Biblical times up to the present day, one can find such Jews either, who regarded critically the Jewish community and even themselves. As an example, we can mention Benjamin Disraeli, who was prime minister of England several times, and who formulated what effect the relations between Jews and non-Jews had, during the history, on the Jewish communities in this way: “They may become so odious and so hostile to mankind, as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which they dwell, and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle.”

Besides the motifs of the Jewish behaviour, an important factor is also the size of the Jewish communities living in America. According to the newest data, the number of Jews living in the United States may be between seven and eight million. Taking into account that this number makes some 2–2.5% of the total population of 320 million, therefore the question is rightful: how was this minority able to change the society of the United States so dramatically, as they did in many essential respects? One of the explanations might be that the Jews are characterized by an intelligence and energicality higher than the average, by passionate devotion and solidarity.

According to Kevin MacDonald, the average IQ of the Jews amounts to 115, which is much higher than the average of the Europe-rooted, white population. If they can identify with a goal that is important for them, they work hard for that, and they are driven by the desire to leave a mark in the world. They enhance this desire of them even with the personal support of each other.

In his essay Jews, Blacks and Race, the Californian professor writes that they followed the evolution of the IQ among the coloured population since the 1960s. Since that time, blacks have been much more likely to be in a high-IQ occupation as whites with the same IQ. For example, in a study performed on data from 1990, whites with professional jobs had an average IQ of 114, while blacks holding these jobs had an average IQ of 94. Average black IQ is 85, one standard deviation below the mean for American whites and at least two standard deviations below the mean Jewish-American IQ of 115. According to MacDonald, reflecting this disparity in IQ and achievement, the relationship between blacks and Jews has always been onesided. Jews have always played an important role in organizing, funding, and promoting black causes, but blacks have played no role in running the affairs of the organized Jewish community or in controlling, in any form, of Jewish organizations.

It is an important circumstance that the Jews have always cooperated in case of questions that they considered to be important from the point of their survival. The intellectual activity is similar to the other human endeavours. The solidary groups compete with each other using individual strategies. In America, for instance, it never happened that the white population promoted, in masses, the immigration of the non-whites. It was forced onto them by a strongly solidary, purposeful minority, annihilating, with various techniques, the resistance of the majority. The movements against the majority were usually actively supported by the organized Jewry, but the Jewish influence was not always decisive. In the 20th century western societies, the intellectual movements dominated by the Jews played an important role in the successes of the left.

Walter Kerr stated in 1968 that, in a certain respect, the American majority started to think like the organized Jewry living there, that is the Americans already think, to an important extent, in a Jewish way. If we collate the above, we get the image that shows that the internal cohesion and internal interest-enforcing capacity of the white population weakened. A few decades before, the Europe-rooted Americans still constituted a self-confident, self-conscious nation, the members of which are proud of their performance, namely that they were able to play a leading role in the world. In our days, the white Americans represent a decaying, defending, annihilating community, which either does not know its history or is ashamed of it. They are all the time blamed that they settled down in their new homeland after exterminating the native Indian population. This extremely quick decay of the white America cannot be considered to be the result of a natural process. This quickness refers to the fact that the organized minority that lives within it, which had and has its separating strategy, could impose its will over the majority.

We would like that the concerned persons should not deny immediately to raise this question and should not label automatically those who ask it. The reactions like this are understandable, but avoid to answer the first and important question: Is it a problem based on proved facts or not? The question and the person who raised it can only be qualified after the “yes” answer given to it.

For already two decades, the writer of the present lines has to face the fact continuously that the Jewish question is one of the most important problems of the people living in the Euro-Atlantic and Middle East area, and, in a form or another, it affects the whole mankind either. Thus, a humanitarian answer should be found to it, on the basis of the universal moral. The organized Jewry made the dealing with the Jewish question a taboo topic. Therefore, the public debate about the Jewish question became a kind of measure of the freedom of the press and of thinking, as well as of the freedom of scientific research. Where the Jewish question cannot be raised in any form, there the intellectual freedom is already damaged.

The research of the objective truth based upon proven facts has always been a risky task, and the history of mankind is full of such heretics, persons thinking in a different way, who have become the victims of the search for truth. In our days, all those who dare tangle the topics deemed to be taboos, immediately get the qualification, the label of hater, bigot, conspiracy theory maker, and so on. Anyway, the facts, as it is used to say, are stubborn things, and even those persons meet them all the time, who would better hide their heads, as struts, in the sand, in order to avoid this confrontation. Frequently we have to confront even our own ignorance, when we make an attempt at getting to know the world strategy of the organized Jewry.

The Jews and the non-Jews (goyim) are in conflict with each other for at least two thousand years. The cause of this, among others, is that their religious and spiritual roots are so close of each other that we could even conceive the conflicts between them as an argument within the family. In the 21st century, the determining cause of the conflict between the Jews and the non-Jews is not the religion. This is so because the religion has lost a lot from its earlier role, and today it is not the most important separating spiritual factor in the respect of the Jewish culture. In the collective consciousness of the organized Jewry, the most important factor is the blood, ethnic, i.e. the racial solidarity. For the non-Jews, the insurmountable obstacle is that the Jews gradually took over the control of the non-Jewish institutions and culture in the part of the world called the West. The ever sharpening rivaling originates in the fact that the money rule Jewry detains a hegemony over the money system and the economy, and they can control, with the help of it, the cultural and scientific life, and even the whole of the political system.

In order to understand the 20th century, called by Yuri Slezkine “the Jewish century”, it is especially important to know what role the organized Jewry played in helping the Bolshevism get to power in the Tsarist Russia. The communism – taking into account its genesis and practical accomplishment – can be considered the collective creation of the Jewry. If it were necessary to support this with a sentence, it would sound as follows: Without the Jewry, there is no Marxism and communist Bolshevism.

Marx did not work out the idea system of communism alone, since he received its main theoretical components ready from Adam Weishaupt, the founder and leader of Jewish origin of the Bavarian Illuminati Order. The representatives of Marxism in Russia were in 95% Jews. In the countries of the western hemisphere, also Jewish leaders controlled the different communist organizations. It is also an important circumstance that the Jewish bankers of Wall Street funded the Russian revolution. This is already supported by several proven facts. Now we make only reference to the fact that Jacob Schiff of New York, leading banker of Wall Street, offered more than twenty million dollars support, through Trotsky, to the Bolsheviks. This was assured also by his son.

The money rule Jewry (personally also Jacob Schiff) hated the Tsar, and this is why they tried to overthrow the Tsarist system by financing the Russian-Japanese war in 1904 and 1905. It is also a known fact that the first laws made by the Bolsheviks included the qualification of anti-Semitism as a crime. The Bolsheviks are responsible for the death of more than fifty million people, many of which were murdered in the most bestial way. Nevertheless, the account of the world communism is charged with the death of at least one hundred million human beings. The getting to world rule of the Bolshevism could not be reached with the economic Marxism, although this goal seemed to be reachable for a short time at the end of the World War I.

In a more refined form, the Marxism exists even today, as liberalism and socialism. Most of the Jews confess themselves liberals, and it is them who created and controlled the main liberal movements. In America, the Jews were the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and also of the major feminist organizations. The best-known Jewish feminists are Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. The civil rights movement connected with the name of Martin Luther King was also initiated and financed by Jews. If we have a glimpse at the leaders of the United States, from President Clinton, through President Bush Jr., to Barack Obama, or at the Congress operating in the Capitol, we can see again that Jewish senators and representatives fulfil the key positions in the legislative and governmental bodies. The efforts aiming at taking away or restriction of guns owned by the population are also controlled by persons like Schumer, Metzenbaum and Feinstein, who, together with several other fellow politicians, represent primarily the organized Jewry.

In the United States, in the 1920s, the leaders of the international communism saw great possibilities in the racial question, because they thought that, with that, they will be able to divide and undermine the American society, as a community integrated into a nation, based upon the human rights and political liberties. And soon those movements were started, which finally lead to the feminism, the special treatment and support of homosexuals, the treatment as a special question of the children’s rights, and to the starting of a series of other such other movements, which were all suitable for the polarization and atomization of the American society. With the help of these movements, it was possible to successfully “pluralize” the society broken into mosaics into parts rivaling with each other. This is the method, used even in our days, of the technique called “divide and rule” of the empire builders, by which it was possible to start the racial conflicts and undermine the natural cohesion of the society.

The Jewish strategy, extending over centuries and even millenniums, strives at achieving the goal fixed in the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament and the Talmud. According to them, the Jewry, as God’s chosen people, is entitled to own the Promised Land. The Promised Land can be the ancient Canaan, or Eretz Israel (Greater Israel, comprising the territories lying between the Nile and Euphrates), but there are many references according to which the Promised Land, in fact, is the whole earth globe. So, the Jewish people is the only people in the world, which, resulting from its religious teachings, has the right, on the basis of the agreement with God, to the hegemony over the whole world.

By obtaining the property of the money system, this remote goal gradually got within reach. For this, it was necessary to create that money system, which is operational in the Euro-Atlantic area at present. A further task was to demolish those dynastic states and split them up into smaller states, which, on the basis of their sovereignty, could have resisted this money system. For this, it was necessary to totally change the European force relations, to overthrow the dynastic empires, and to terminate the sovereignty of the successor national states, by forcing them into a new empire structure. By this, it was possible to assure that the money rule world elite – the top management of which is performed by the super-rich, Zionist and Cabbalistic money dynasties of Jewish origin – could strengthen its rule over whole world spheres. The money rule world elite keeps primarily the Euro-Atlantic world sphere under control, but the money system dominated by it has a determining impact also on the operation of the whole world. This money rule world elite keeps the world trade, the money system and the global mass media under control. Such a power situation was created, the controllers of which hoped to make it irreversible.

This would mean that the Jewish people would still manage – according to the agreement made by their mythical leader, Moses, with Yahveh on Mount Sinai – to create a state on the territory of the Promised Land in such a way that they obtained the indisputable leading role in this new world order and its global state.

From the chosenness one can logically derive the special status of the Jewish people, which differentiates them from the other peoples. It lays duties on them, but also endows them with extra rights. So the Jewish supremacism results from the chosenness, and cannot be regarded a kind of invented concept. Who studies the writings and spiritual heritage of the Levites, scribes, Pharisees, Talmudists and Cabbalists, can find that the Jews considered themselves unambiguously superior to the other peoples, continuously from the Biblical times to the present. This conscience of superiority can take various forms and can be a religious dogma or a theory and doctrine founded in another way.

The above can also formulated in this way: As a Jew I believe my people to be the chosen people of the creator of the universe and that as part of this divinely-appointed status: Jews like myself are manifestly superior to non-Jews and so Jews should govern the world.” As it can be read in the article On the Definition of Jewish Supremacism published on 24th August 2013 in the Semitic Controversies internet blog.

So a Jew can formulate his opinion even in this way: As a Jew I strongly believe in Tikkun Olam; as we are instructed by Hashem [the Name, i.e. God – J.D.] to perform as a Mitzvah among the nations, and the transformative potential that its practice would have on the nations if this was regularly performed by all Jews the world over.”

(Tikkun Olam is a distinguished internet blog, read by a considerable part of the Jewry. In the Jewish history, the Jewish religion, the commandment of Tikkun Olam is identified with the commitment to social justice and charity – literally “repair of the world”. By today, its interpretation has widened so much that Tikkun Olam is related to all such actions or faiths which are useful for the world.)

The same, above mentioned writing gives the definition of the “Jewish Supremacism” as follows: The belief, theory or doctrine; which can be explicitly or implicitly stated in either communication or behaviour, that the Jewish people are manifestly superior to all others and should aspire to aggressively acquire and retain complete control of all power relationships practically extent in the world.”

In the respect of America, taking into account the above, we can already classify the behaviour of non-Zionist Jews who believe they have an entitlement over and above that of gentiles based on their status as Jews as supremacists, while also allowing us to classify the behaviour of both “dove” and “hawk” sections of the Israel Lobby as such. It also nicely allows us to classify the aggressive career promotion activities of Jewish individuals within a non-Jewish governmental and non-governmental context as having supremacist goals given the well-documented use of such neutral positioning to enforce an Israel-first or Jews-first agenda.

According to the standing-point of the organized Jewry, the rejection or questioning of the Jewish supremacism is already the expression of anti-Semitism. It is a commonplace that the term “anti-Semite” is not too lucky, because this is, in fact, against the case of formulating a critique only against the Jews, and not of the aversion against all Semite peoples. The more exact formulation would be the anti-Jewishness or the hatred of Jews. But this is not a solution either, because the protest comes immediately: Zionism should not be confused with Judaism! Michael Neumann, professor of Trent University, Ontario, Canada, in his article What is Antisemitism?, published on 4th June 2002 in the Counter Punch internet magazine, stated that antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.”

The extreme widening, the inflating of the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, so that it should comprise all that is politically detrimental for Israel, is a double-edged sword. The more things get to count as anti-Semitic, the less awful anti-Semitism is going to sound. In particular, no definition of “anti-Semitism” is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts. Professor Neumann illustrates this statement with an example. So, if an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is anti-Semitism, certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace.

So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing, one can only say that the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people must be changed. The creation of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories is wrong and inacceptable. So, if someone opposes the settlements, and therefore has to be classified as anti-Semitic, it must be declared that some form of “anti-Semitism” has become morally obligatory.

The situation gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled anti-Semitic. The establishment of the settlements are regarded an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, even anti-Semitic. As a conclusion, if anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism is a moral obligation. In his already cited essay, Professor Neumann states that if anti-Semitism is going to be a term of condemnation, then, it must apply beyond explicitly racist acts or thoughts or feelings. But it cannot apply beyond clearly unjustified and serious hostility to Jews.

Those can be regarded racists who complain about Jewish dominance of the economy. This is anti-Semitism in a narrow, negative sense of the word. It is action or propaganda designed to hurt Jews. Therefore Neumann suggests that it is best to narrow the definition of anti-Semitism. It must be made unambiguous that an act can only be classified anti-Semitic if it can be also morally objectionable.

Is it possible to legitimately judge the collective attitude of the Jewry?

The writer of the present lines gained, primarily in New York, a direct experience concerning the fact that it is not practical to criticize the Jewry as a group, the Jewish culture and the general Jewish ways of behaviour. If one touches these topics taken as taboos, will automatically be rejected and will be classified as a person who neglects the general public consent, an anti-Semite, a racist. Touching a taboo topic is in itself rejected, and the factual basis of the criticism – whether it is true or false – will not be the subject of investigation.

Therefore it is important to answer the question: If it is not possible to analyze the taboo topics good-willingly and impartially, then also the researcher sticking to the liberty of speech and liberty of thinking can be labeled as anti-Semite? In such a case what does it mean to be qualified as anti-Semite? Almost everywhere in the states of the Euro-Atlantic area, we can find the phenomenon that who criticizes the Jewish people, culture or behaviour, is qualified an immoral person showing a racist attitude. If, on the other hand, someone refers to the liberty of press and speech, assured in all countries of the area, he will be able to exert this right, in the best case, only applying a careful self-censorship.

In the Western democracies – in France, Great Britain, the United States, Canada and in the North- and South European countries as well as, after World War II, also in Germany – the ultimate source of the political power is, theoretically, the whole of the population of the given country, commonly known as people. The basic constitutional rights include the provision that all citizens are equal before the law, and all have the right to set forth their views, and they influence in this way those who exert the power, whose decisions then he will have to execute.

The democratic systems involve the thesis that the public power and the other power-exerting structures, which take part in the exertion of the social, economic and political power, are, in fact, subjected to the sovereignty of the people, that is, in a real democracy, the citizens have the right to examine closely and criticize each and every power factor. This is completely obvious in the respect of the three branches of public power. The legislative, executive and judiciary power branches not only complete and mutually control each other, but they are also under control from below, with democratic methods. This is, nevertheless, not valid for the decision-making structures of the actually existing organized private power, which is formally regarded non-existing. Formally, they are not under the control coming from below of the people’s sovereignty, at the same time, the real democracy would also demand that also the organized private power should be, at least in an indirect way, under the control of the whole of the society. It is not encoded in the constitutions, but the sovereign people can be the ultimate source of power also in the case of the organized private power.

The freedom of the whole society and the human rights and liberties of the individual citizens depend on how the whole of the society, the inhabitants of the country, the people can control, from below, the decision-makers exerting the power. The right of the civil society to be able to research any question and to judge any social factor is an important question of power. If any organization or any social group withdraws from under the criticism, it means that it gained an uncontrolled power which it can misuse. People living in Western democracies have the moral and political right to make the subject of public debate and even criticize all such power factors, which can make decisions affecting their lives.

From this it can be derived that all such practices that hinders the manifestation of the public opinion and suppresses the criticism, in fact, prejudices the basic norms of democracy. In the present world system, the centre of gravity of the global power is, for the moment, still in the Euro-Atlantic area. The leading state of which is the United States. Therefore, it is practical to investigate closely the operation of the global elite exerting the power in the whole of the Euro-Atlantic area first in America.

The money rule world elite is a closed group of interest consisting of the top decision-makers of the organized private power grown to global size. The altogether 43,000 transnational corporations existing in the world are owned by 147 big financial institutions cross-owned by several thousand legal entities. The 147 financial institutions are owned by three hundred super-rich banker dynasties. According to the estimates of the mathematician economists, even the non-divided family property of these banker dynasties amounted to many hundred trillion dollars (1 trillion = one thousand billions) in our century.

This money rule world elite consists preponderantly of financials of Jewish origin, and their number amounts to seven thousand, according to experts (David Rothkopf, Superclass, 2008). This power elite of Jewish origin is not only the leader of the 6.5–7 million Jewish community living in America, but, as the owner of the money system, the central banks and the big commercial banks, they control the whole political system of the United States. The Jewish communities living in America take part disciplined in the elections, so they have a decisive impact on the election results.

Compared to their average number, the Jews are three times more represented equally in the Congress of the United States, the House of Representatives and Senate than the rest of the society. It is also them who fulfil the leading positions in the Pentagon, the Foreign Ministry, the CIA, the White House, the FBI and in other important state and public administration institutions. They take part in a considerable number in the leading bodies of the big parties, besides the fact that half of the funding of the parties comes from the Jewish money rule elite. The so-called neo-conservative movement, gradually developing from the middle of the 1970s, was also a Jewish initiative. In our days, it cannot be questioned that also the national network of the printed and electronic mass-media is preponderantly in Jewish property and operates under the hegemony of the Jewish power network.

Since the Jewish communities of the United States constitute a centrally controlled group of big power, which exerts a determining influence on the whole social, political and economic situation of America, the Americans have the right to study, investigate and, if necessary, criticize that organized Jewry which represents also a power structure detaining an important influence.

Criticizing the Jewry is a taboo

Nevertheless, criticizing the Jewry became a taboo, and, by the present day, it is similar to the immoral racism. This taboo works not only as a paralyzing self-censorship, but it also generates consciousness of guilt and fear in the person who undertakes the research of the financial, political and social power of the Jewry. The critical behaviour can lead to serious existential consequences, therefore, in the United States, there are very few people in our days who dare to ask the question concerning how many bankers and businessmen, freelance intellectuals and university professors, trade union leaders and politicians are Jews or of Jewish origin, and how they fulfil their social duties. The cultural values, common interests and partialities of the Jews, in general the collective behaviour of the Jewry has become exempt from any critical examination. The Jewry attained this protected status by using the accusation of anti-Semitism as a weapon.

The Jewish organizations developed efficient methods for silencing the critical voices. They refuse in the most definite way that the Jewry, as an organized community, has any collectively exerted power. They are only willing to admit that certain concrete Jewish persons may detain some power, but the organized Jewry, as a community, may not. If the Jewish cultural traditions, points of view, values, customs and other similar factors influence the decisions of the given Jewish persons, and, in this way, they have an impact on the whole society, then the Jewry must admit that the American citizens have the right to submit the values, religious dogmas and customs originating from the Jewish culture to a thorough examination, and, if necessary to even criticize them for the sake of the public welfare.

The roots of the separatism and of the double standard in Judaism

Those who want to understand the behaviour of the organized Jewry, differentiate between the Judaism, i.e. the Jewish religious traditions and the Zionism, as political ideology. Those who reject the Zionism, due to its aggressive ethnic nationalism, recommend the humanist values of the Judaism instead. The analysis of the problem, nevertheless, leads the researcher to the revelation that the aggressive ethnic nationalism of the Zionism is, in fact, rooted in the Judaism. Therefore, the behaviour of the organized Jewry, the way in which the “Israel Lobby” operates in the United States, is not an aberration, but rather such a collective way of thinking and behaviour, which is deeply rooted in Jewish religious writings and in centuries of Jewish tradition.

Most people prefer pleasant myths, praising their own community to unpleasant historical truths, and prefer to believe what is most comfortable and agreeable. That’s one reason why there so many who consider the Torah, the Jewish Bible, for its humanistic core values, to be the religious document that influences not only the fate of the Jewish people, but also that of the whole humanity.

Mark Weber wrote in his article Why Judaism Is Not Like Other Religions? (http://www.ihr.org/judaism0709.html) that Judaism is unique among the world’s major religions. The core values and ethos of Judaism are markedly unlike those of Christianity, Islam, and the other great faiths. Christians believe that Jesus suffered and died for all people, and Christians are called upon to spread the Christian message to humanity. In the same way, Muslims believe that the message of the Koran is meant for all humanity, and they are called upon to bring everyone to Islam.

But that’s not the message of Judaism. Its teachings are not meant for all people. Its morality is not universal. Judaism is a religion for one particular people. The Jewish religion is based not on a relationship between God and humanity, but rather on a “covenant,” or contract, between God and a “chosen” people. This people is the community known as the Jews, the Jewish People, the Israelites, the Hebrews, or the “People of Israel.” In his above mentioned article, Mark Weber mentions that in the Christian calendar the greater holidays, like Christmas, Easter and Whitsun, all refer to important data of the life of Jesus. Similarly, in the Muslim calendar the holidays remind of the major events of Mohamed, the prophet. On the other hand, in the Jewish calendar the main holidays remind of important events of the history of the Jewish people.

One major reason why the role of the organized Jewish community is a problem is because most American Jews manifest a strong loyalty to a foreign country, Israel, and not to the country they live in. The role of the Jewish community is also a harmful one because Jews are encouraged to regard themselves as separate from the rest of humanity, and as members of a community with interests quite distinct from those of everyone else. Thus, an “Us vs. Them” attitude occurs in all societies of nearly all countries. This mindset sees Jews as dis­tinct from the rest of humanity, and which views non-Jews with distrust, from which they, in a hidden or open way, separates, is rooted in the Jewish religion, and in centuries of tradition.

Christians are supposed to live their lives in accord with the Bible, and especially the teachings of Jesus as laid out in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Muslims are called upon to live their lives in accord with the Koran. Similarly, Jews are supposed to live their lives in accord with the principles laid out in the Hebrew scriptures, the “Tanakh,” which is also known as the Old Testament. Mark Weber quotes from seventeen places of the Tanakh what these writings tell about how Jews should think of themselves, and how they should interact with non-Jews.

A core message of the Hebrew scriptures, the Tanakh is that Jews are a divinely “chosen” people – a unique community distinct from the rest of humanity. “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord  your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession.(Deuteronomy,V. 7:6) “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy,V. 14:2)

According to some orthodox Jewish leaders, the “chosen people” is not just a superior or privileged group. They regard Jews and non-Jews as practically different species.

Rabbi Menachem Schneerson (18th April 1902 – 12th June 1994), the “Lubovitcher Rebbe” who headed the Chabad orthodox Jewish movement, and wielded great influence in Israel as well as in the US, explained the difference between the Jews and non-Jews as follows: “The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression, `Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of `let us differentiate’ between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world … A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. It is written, `And the strangers shall guard and feed your flocks’ (Isaiah 61:5). The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews …”

The Jewish scriptures also refer to Jews or Hebrews as a “people that shall dwell alone”, or, in another translation, as “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations”. In the book of Numbers, relating about the numbering of the Israelites, we can read: “For from the top of the crags I see him, from the hills I behold him; Here is a people living alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations! (Numbers 23:9).  In the book of Exodus, relating about the fleeing of the Jews from Egypt, we read of the Jews as a people “distinct … from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (Exodus 33:16).

The Old Testament also explains that if Jews uphold the “covenant”, the contract made with God, and maintain their separateness from all others, they will be rewarded with great wealth and power over other peoples. In the book of Deuteronomy, which contains the summary of the laws, Jews are promised that “If you will only obey the Lord your God, by diligently observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth” (Deuteronomy 28:1) and that “All the people of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of you.” (Deuteronomy 28:10). In another passage God tells the Jews: “For the Lord your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you.” (Deuteronomy 15:6).

In the book of Genesis, we read: “May God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine. Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!” (Genesis 27:28-29). In another passage in the book of Deuteronomy, God promises to Jews “When the Lord your God has brought you into the land that he swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you, – a land with fine and large cities, which you did not build, and houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which you did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which you did not plant – and when you have eaten your fill, take care that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.(Deuteronomy 6:10-12).

The same idea returns in the book of Isaiah, we read: “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you; for in my wrath I struck you down, but in my favour I have had mercy on you. Your gates shall always be open; day and night they shall not be shut, so that nations shall bring you their wealth, with their kings led in procession. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.” (Isaiah 60:10-12)

In the book of Deuteronomy we can read: “If you will diligently observe this entire commandment that I am commanding you, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the Lord will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and mightier than yourselves. Every place on which you set foot shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the Western Sea.” (Deuteronomy 11:22-23).

In the course of history, all those peoples which lived together with Jewish communities of considerable size, could experience that these communities living separately lived according to a double moral and applied one standard for the themselves and another for their fellow human beings belonging to the recipient nations. This is reinforced in the book of Deuteronomy, where God commands the Jews: “You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess.” (Deuteronomy 23:19-21)

In the Jewish history, we could continuously follow that the Jewish communities separated from others and stuck to the application of the double standard. This has also strong Biblical roots. The seventh chapter of the book of Deuteronomy gives a clear guidance: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you […] seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them … And you shall destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God will give over to you, your eye shall not pity them.”

A characteristic feature of the Jewish communities is the obligation of the strong keeping together and helping each other. This, nevertheless, is accomplished, in a specific way, also in the form that the Jewry, as a community, if is able and finds it necessary, takes revenge in advance. The history of this, in a form of a legend grown mythical, can be read in the book of Esther: “Now (…) on the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain power over them, but which had been changed to a day when the Jews would gain power over their foes, the Jews gathered in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who had sought their ruin; and no one could withstand them, because the fear of them had fallen upon all peoples. All the officials of the provinces, the satraps and the governors, and the royal officials were supporting the Jews. (…) So the Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering, and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them.  (…) Now the other Jews who were in the king’s provinces also gathered to defend their lives, and gained relief from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them…” (Esther 9:1-2,5,16)

The awareness that the Jews are a chosen people necessarily differentiates them from all other peoples that are not chosen. If we interpret the chosenness from moral point, it means that the chosen people is burdened with many moral obligations, and, defeating even its own frailness, strictly observing God’s laws, it must show an example to the other peoples in the world, who are not chosen. This higher morality is obligatory for it also because it is the linking tie between the whole of mankind and God. If we interpret the chosenness pragmatically, it can mean an exempt position, advantages and privileges, which the non-chosen peoples must acknowledge. In this respect, the chosenness already means a kind of supremacy over the other peoples.

The privileges include the provision that the chosen people should get advantages and its living should be assured, even at the cost of the work of another people. If, on the other hand, this other people opposes this double standard, then it must be feared. And then the fear soon gives birth to hatred and even the vengeance. Let us see what is written about this in the book of Deuteronomy. In the twentieth chapter, which is about warfare, we read: “When you go out to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots, an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. Before you engage in battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the troops, and shall say to them: Hear, O Israel! Today you are drawing near to do battle against your enemies. Do not lose heart, or be afraid, or panic, or be in dread of them; for it is the Lord your God who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to give you victory.”

It is worth the attention what is written in the twentieth chapter, from verse 10 on: “When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if the answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you … But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God give you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them…”

In chapter 8, verse 24 of the book of Joshua, we read this harrowing account about how the conquered country and its inhabitants should be treated: “When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai [the name of a kingdom – J.D.]in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and when all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai, and attacked it with the edge of the sword. The total of those who fell that day, both men and women, was twelve thousand – all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the sword, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. (…) So Joshua burned Ai, and made it for ever a heap of ruins, as it is to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening

From chapter 10 verse 20 of the book of Joshua, we can read the following on how the warriors of Israel treated the attacked and defeated peoples: “When Joshua and the Israelites had finished inflicting a very great slaughter on them, until they were wiped out, and when the survivors had entered into the fortified towns”. And then Joshua ordered that the kings of the five defeated peoples, who were kept as prisoners in a cage, should be brought before him: “They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, ‘Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings.’ Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. And Joshua said to them, ‘Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the Lord will do to all the enemies against whom you fight.’ Afterwards Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day.”

In chapter 31 of the book of Exodus, besides others, the divine order is about the celebration of Sabbath: “For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant.” (Exodus 31:15-16)

This is reinforced also by chapter 35 verse 2: “For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.

The Ten Commandments, obligatory today for all Christians and even to all human beings, are contained in chapter 20 of the book of Exodus. Here we can read: “Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Chapter 21 verse 17 contains again a very severe law: “Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.” This is reinforced by chapter 20 verse 9 of the book of Leviticus: “All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.”

Is there a Jewish superiority?

Israel Shahak (1933-2001), professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, analyzes thoroughly the above treated problem, from the point of the present-day Jewry, in his world-famous book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (1994).

In this work of his, Shahak exposes that the history of most peoples is initially ethnocentric. After some time, nevertheless, they undergo such a critical analysis, which makes it possible to accept also other interpretations. The European Enlightenment had an impact on the Jewish communities from two points: on one hand liberated them from under the Christian anti-Semitism, and, on the other hand, from that priestly rule in the ghetto, which controlled the keeping of the Jewish traditions.

The load of the traditions means a heavy burden, especially if it is based upon such scriptures which are considered saint. The separation, the chosenness and the superiority are such forms of behaviour which the Hebraic holy scriptures prescribe up to the present day, and which even appears in the policy of Israel and of the organized Jewish community.

Professor Shahak supports his standpoint also with an example: For there can no longer be any doubt that the most horrifying acts of oppression in the West Bank are motivated by Jewish religious fanaticism.” Shahak quotes from an official warning addressed to the religious Jewish soldiers regarding the non-Jews. In the official act issued by the central territorial Command of the Israeli Army, the Chief Chaplain writes:

“When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed . . . Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized . . . In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.”

The Jews form a separate people

The view that Jews are a distinct people with a primary commitment to Israel and the Jewish community is forthrightly affirmed by Elliott Abrams, an American Jewish scholar. Abrams was President George W. Bush’s senior advisor for “global democratic strategy”, and in 2006 was a key advisor on Middle East affairs to the US Secretary of State. In his book Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America, published in 1997, he writes: “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nations in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart – except in Israel – from the rest of the population.”

According to Abrams, “Judaism and the Jewish way of life is not entirely voluntary, for the Jew is born into a covenantal community with obligations to God.” And he goes on: “Jews are in a permanent covenant with God and with the land of Israel and its people. Their commitment will not weaken if the Israeli government pursues unpopular policies …”

Dov Fischer, a Rabbi and an attorney, published a remarkable essay in 2002 in the Forward, the prominent Jewish community weekly, entitled We’re Right, the Whole World’s Wrong. Besides this, Dov Fischer was a member of the Jewish Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and also national vice president of the Zionist Organization of America. The above mentioned essay was not written by an obscure or semi-literate scribbler, but rather by an influential Jewish community figure. And the Forward is not some marginal periodical, but rather what is perhaps the most literate and thoughtful Jewish weekly in America, and certainly one of the most influential. In his essay, Rabbi Fischer tells readers:

“If we Jews are anything, we are a people of history … Our history provides the strength to know that we can be right and the whole world wrong. We were right, and the whole world was wrong. The Crusades. The blood libels and the Talmud burnings in England and France, leading those nations to expel Jews for centuries. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition. The ghettos and the Mortara case in Italy. Dreyfus in France. Beilis in Russia and a century’s persecution of Soviet Jewry.”

Let us quote some more from this instructive writing: “The Holocaust. Kurt Waldheim in Austria. Each time, Europe stood by silently – or actively participated in murdering us – and we alone were right, and the whole world was wrong. (…) Today, once again, we alone are right and the whole world is wrong. The Arabs, the Russians, the Africans, the Vatican proffer their aggregated insights into and accumulated knowledge of the ethics of massacre. And the Europeans. Although we appreciate the half-century of West European democracy more than we appreciated the prior millennia of European brutality, we recognize who they are, what they have done – and what’s what.”

Thus, a part of the Jews still believe, with an undisguised sincerity, that they are a people chosen by God, and so they are above the non-chosen peoples. And the secularized Jews use every occasion to tell how many excellent scientists, philosophers or writers are Jews or of Jewish origin, and all this is rooted in the extraordinary talent of the Jews. They do not say a word about the fact that, in the winning of Nobel Prize and other awards, what was the role of the specific Jewish moral that puts themselves into the limelight, of the ambitions belonging to the Jewish culture, of the traditions, of the foundations, of the scholarships, of the family relations, of the well-functioning networks and, of course, of the strong financial and economic background.

The Jewry separates from others and lives a self-determining community life even if most of them do not follow any more the Jewish religious prescriptions and do not stick to the keeping of traditions. J. O. Hertzler states that the Jew, who is already agnostic or atheist, continues to regard himself a Jew, and is, probably, even unconsciously filled with the feeling of the tribal superiority, even if he does not follow the religious prescriptions any more (The Sociology of Antisemitism Through History, p. 68.)

Herbert Russcol and Margalit Banai also mention that haughty arrogance they experienced in the behaviour of the Jews living in Israel: “It has an even deeper cause, maybe the chauvinism, the innate, self-praising feeling of the Jewish superiority. Real or just imaginary, this expression of the superiority always makes the non-Jews angry. Without a national home of their own and disparaging others, the Jewry turned inwards and reimbursed themselves with a spiritual arrogance.” (Russcol, Herbert and Banai, Margalit. The First Million Sabras. A Portrait of the Native-Born Israelis. Hart Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1970)

In 1984, Mordechai Nisan, professor of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published an article in Kivunim, official publication of the World Zionist Organization. Here Nisan writes the following: “It is true that the Jews form a special people, and they are created in such a way to be ‘the light of the world’. This function is forced onto the Jews, who endeavour to make up an aristocracy among the nations, such a people which has deeper historical roots, has a higher spiritual commitment, higher moral norms and stronger intellectual capacity than others. This concept, which considerably differs from the accepted egalitarian approach, is not based upon the arbitrary hostility against the non-Jews, but on the deep understanding of the quality of Jewish folk character.” (Harkabi, Yehoshafat: Israel’s Fateful Hour. Harper and Row, NY, 1988)

In this way, the concept of the chosen people can be understood even as aristocracy, which might have contributed to the discrimination of the non-Jews, since they are not equal with the chosen people. Norman Cantor, professor at New York University, at the beginning of his book titled The Jewish Experience, writes: “The world without Jews would be a world without humanity.” (Cantor, Norman: The Jewish Experience. Harper Collins. NY, 1996) Formulated in another way, this means that all non-Jew human being lack humanity. He also repeats this view of his on page 311 of his book, saying: “The Jews form a uniquely outstanding group, characterized by the inflexible desire for creation and performance.”

In another book of his, dealing with the history of the Jews, Norman Cantor returns to his previously cited thesis, the essence of which is that the Jews are genetically superior to other people. In his book The Sacred Chain, we can read the following:

“When the Jews were emancipated, much too many young Jews, endowed with outstanding capacities, could not find an appropriate place in the society and economy, which could have offered a possibility for the development of their talent.” (p 275)

“The Jews, when they got emancipated and got possibilities for mobility, were so superior genetically that the market capitalism was not able to duly receive some of these exquisite talents.” p 271)

“The Jews are a superior people intellectually and as long as Jewish genes exist, the extraordinary impact Jews have had in twentieth century thought will continue indefinitely.” (p 423)

“Although millions of Jews brought along with them their East-European misery to the West, the superior quality of their innate intelligence, their erudition, their moral teachings controlled by the religion, and their genes made it possible for them an upward mobility in the Western society.”

“The genetic exquisiteness of the Jews will persist until its bearers are personally free and have the possibility to deal with science, philosophy, literature and arts, which will bring extremely advantageous consequences for mankind.”

We would like to emphasize that all we quoted above is not the opinion of a possessed, egocentric and absurdly extremist person, but of a Jewish professor of a great university of New York, whose opinion is respected by many. Also in this book, Cantor refers to Maimonides, who made an attempt at alloying the Talmud with the Greek tradition, primarily with the work of Aristotle. Maimonides propagated that “God differentiated us from the rest of mankind.” Another Talmudist scholar, Judah Halevi, was – according to Cantor – such a Jewish nationalist, who believed not only in the superiority of Judaism, but also in the innate, internally originated superiority of the Jews over other peoples. Arnold Eisen adds to this that Halevi believed that the capacity inhered in the Jews uniquely made this people able to receive the divine enunciation. (Eisen, Arnold M.: The Chosen People in America: A Study in Religious Ideology. Indiana University Press, 1983.)

For Norman Cantor, it is a problem to somehow harmonize the universal humanism and the Jewish racism. As we have seen, he openly propagates the Jewish racism, and, at the same time, he also criticizes this Jewish tradition.

“Racism is one of the central doctrines of the traditional Judaism and of the Jewish cultural history. The Hebrew Bible is openly racist, when it speaks of the seed of Abraham, of the chosen people and of Israel, as the light of other peoples. The orthodox Jews thank God in their prayer everyday for having created the Jews different people from other peoples. What is racism, if not this?” (Cantor, Norman: The Jewish Experience. Harper Collins, NY., 1996) One can agree with this view of Cantor, and we have also tried to support this, at the beginning of this chapter, with several quotations. At the same time, Cantor formulates, with the requirement of the scientific objectivity, as follows: “Why were the Jews, as a group of people immigrating into America, more successful than the Irish or the Italians? Perhaps due to the inherent superior genes and the more efficient selection and education of their descendants.” (p 389)

Another Jewish scholar, Raphael Patai, in his work titled The Jewish Mind, states that the Jewish excellence and intellectual superiority over the non-Jews. In order to support his theses, Patai goes back to the views of the Nazi Hans Günther, who propagated the survival of the most suitable and the most capable. This view is based on Darwin’s teachings, as well as on the tradition of the Jewish martyrdom. According to the latter, the selection that developed naturally, during centuries, favored the cleverest and most capable Jewish descendants, when they had to survive in a hostile goyim environment. Patai also mentions that the Christian church offered a high-level education only to those who chose the clerical career. In this way, the priesthood was created from the most talented and most educated people, who, on the other hand, due to the celibate, did not leave behind any descendants. It means that the most talented Christians could not contribute to the genetic development of the non-Jew population. (Patai, Raphael: The Jewish Mind. Charles Scribner’s Sons. NY., 1977)

Another Jewish author, Nathaniel Weyl, summarizes this theory as follows: “The intellectual superiority of the Jews is the result of a two-millennium process that consciously selected the talented descendants.” If the cancelling of the priests’ celibate assured a genetic advantage for the Protestant countries, in the respect of the intellectual power, similar institutionalized factors assured genetic advantages for the Jews against the Christians. (Weyl, Nathaniel: The Jew in American Politics. Arlington House New Rochelle, NY., 1968)

Peter Gay, one of Sigmund Freud’s biographers, did not accept the statements concerning the genetic superiority of the Jews. This was criticized by Benjamin Goodnick (Goodnick, Benjamin. Two Jews – Freud and Gay. Judaism. N. 149, V. 38. no. 1. 1989 tele, p 108). It is worth considering why Peter Gay criticizes unmercifully the topic of the essence of the Jewish existence. He was deeply disturbed by the fact that the Jews can be different from the other people, and he opposed this view. To him, it was an untenable opinion that the Jews are, due to their inner endowments, are more intelligent than others. This view of Gay is strange because he accepts the story of the Darwinian struggle. The review of the Jewish history could have convince him of the fact that the persecution and the decimation of the Jewish people during one thousand years produced inevitably the survival of the most capable people.

Thus, this idea of the Jewish supremacy is deeply rooted in the mentality of the Jews. The mythology of the chosenness is one of the basic teachings of the Jewish religion. Eva (Etzioni) and Zvi Halevy wrote in the June 1977 issue of The Jewish Journal of Sociology: “This constituting element of Judaism (the idea of chosenness) maybe cannot be attractive any longer for those who praise the modern, universal values; if we regard this from an unfavorable point of view, we can even take it as a quasi racist dogma. It is possible that it cannot be acceptable, in its original version, for the majority of the non-orthodox, modern Jews. Nevertheless, in a modified, less visible and less evident form, it probably continues to exert a perceptible impact on the image created by the Jews about themselves, and on what the Jews think about their place in the modern world.” (Etzioni-Halevy, Eva and Halevy, Zvi. The ‘Jewish Ethic’ and the ‘Spirit of Achievement’. The Jewish Journal of Sociology. Vol XIX no. 1977. June 1. pp 60-61).

Several Jewish authors also see that the modern Jewry feels an inner compulsion even today to prove that they stand above other people, and, in this way, in the practical life, they follow the dogma of the chosen people – not in a religious form any longer, but in a secular one. This deeply infiltrated Jewish self-conceit is part of their community identity consciousness, which was frequently mentioned and criticized, in the course of history, by the irritated non-Jews, but sometimes even by the Jews themselves. From time to time, Jewish thinkers admit that this is an important factor of the hostility and aversion felt from the part of non-Jews. C. G. Shoenfeld writes that certain Jews give proof of such a behaviour, which can be called a kind of intellectual haughtiness or arrogance. (Schoenfeld, C. G. Psychoanalysis and Anti-Semitism. The Psychoanalytic Review. V. 53, no. 1, 1966 Spring, pp 24-37)

Ernest Jones, Freud’s another biographer, put it as follows: “Certain Jews manifest an interesting complex of superiority in the respect of the rule of reason. This apparent haughtiness and arrogance can easily arouse adverse reactions, about which some psychoanalysts think that, in the subconscious, this is its primary goal, that is this apparent arrogance serves the basic psychic functioning, and in this way it helps the satisfying of the masochist necessities in the subconscious.

The sciences in which the human being plays a determining role usually deal with divergent problems. The essence of these is that, from the point of the solutions, several correct answers can be given to them. In the case of convergent problems, this is right the contrary, because there the circle of correct answers gets ever tighter, and is finally reduced to the theoretically single correct answer, which is generally accepted by everybody. The Freudism, the psychoanalysis researched the phenomenon of masochism. Should we talk about either masochism or anti-Semitism, the Jewish teaching according to which they are better than anyone else, always enhanced, in the course of history, the emerging of a conflict between the Jewish communities and the societies receiving them. Even if the Jewish supremacism has not got a religious, genetic or secular basis any more, the need for supremacy has survived, living an independent life, and continues to have effect.

Arnold Eisen formulated this in 1963 in the way that the Jewish culture conveyed to him by his parents was only a fragmented one, but they passed on to him such a spirituality that can be expressed by the following three words: “Jews are better”. The singer Eddie Fischer put it in this way: “In every minute of my life I was aware of the fact that I am a Jew… I felt that I was belonging to a very exclusive club, and I was proud of it.” (Eisen, Arnold. The Rhetoric of Chosenness. [in Lipset, Am. Pl.] 1963)

It might be a repetition, but it still belongs here: the idea that the Jews are intellectually above the non-Jews has a long history within the development of racist nature of the Jewish community. The East-European Jewish children were educated, through centuries, in a way that the positive Jewish characteristics were always confronted with the negative characteristics of the non-Jews. Zborowski, the Jewish scholar, mentioned: “The Jewish children are confronted with a series of contradictions. They grow up in such a way that they consider some behaviour to be the characteristic features of the non-Jews. In the case of Jews, the emphasis falls on the intellect, the moderation, the fostering of the intellectual values, the preference given to the rational, purposeful activities, and on the harmonic family life. Among the non-Jews, the Jewish child looks for the contrary: there the emphasis is on the body, the flesh, the immoderateness, the violent instincts, the sexual liberalism and on the cruel violence.” (Zborowski, Mark. Herzog, Elizabeth. Life is with People: The Culture of the Shtetl. Schocken Books, NY, 1952, 1967) These are such stereotypes, which any racist community can say about those who do not belong to their community.

The Jewish arrogance, haughtiness and loftiness have also other forms of appearance. Rudolf Lowenstein writes the following: “The ostentatious, patronizing and arrogant behaviour of some Jews is what irritates the non-Jews. This contains the elements of hostility, felt both by the Jews and the non-Jews. The successful Jew tries to recoup himself for the humiliations suffered in the past, not for those which he did not share, because he was poor, but those he shared because he was a Jew. This is a kind of attempt at the rehabilitation of the whole Jewish people, with the help of the success attained by them.” (Lowenstein, R. M. Christians and Jews: A psychoanalytic Study. International Universities Press, NY, 1951 also, A Delta Book, New York, 1963., p 130)

That internal Jewish compulsion to identify with the idea of the Jewish collective supremacy is explained by Jacob Neusner as follows: “Being a Jew means that I am different. Being a Jew is not as good as being a non-Jew. There is a Jewish father, who is the target of his child’s consciousness of guilt. In this way, the normal guilty conscience of the early school years can turn into the hate of the father, or can create such a self-hatred, which is a substitute of the hatred felt toward the father.” (Neusner, Jacob. American Judaism. Adventure in Modernity. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972)

Michael Lerner approaches this problem in another way: “The hostility felt against the non-Jews turned into a special culture of anti-goyim attitude. This can be dominant among the liberal American Jews and the Israeli rightists. It is not a secret that the Jews disparage and disdain the non-Jews behind their back. Certain Jews are boasting about how the cheated the non-Jews in business life. And others do not maintain social relations with them.” (Lerner, Michael. Goyim Bashing and Jewish Pessimism. in Lerner, pp 430-435)

Greenberg writes in his article titled Self-hatred and Jewish Chauvinism, published in the American magazine Commentary: “We know from the history that the chauvinism and the blind nationalism usually compensates for the feeling of the collective failure… When a people tastes the first successes, it feels enough self-confidence to actively compensate itself for the feeling of inferiority. They usually do it with arrogance and self-praise.” (Greenberg, Clement. Self-hatred and Jewish Chauvinism. Some Reflections on “Positive Jewishness”. Commentary, November 1950, pp 426-433)

Boas Evron added to this the following: “The nowadays popular declamation on the ‘Jewish pride’ and on the ‘proud Jews’ is only a pathetic expression of the bitterness about the fact that in fact there is nothing to be proud of.” (Evron, Boas. Jewish State or Israeli Nation? Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1995)

And here fits Kenneth Clark’s remark, published in the Jewish magazine In Kiell: “Among Jews, the supersensitiveness connected with the Jewish existence has several forms, including the permanent worry connected to the racial and religious problem, and the apparently compulsory arguments on the problems and on the hardships of the Jewish people, even in such situations when these problems are not current. There is such a tendency according to which nearly all social problems or events have to be evaluated in relationship with the problems of the Jews. The other form of appearance of the defensive supersensitiveness is the supposition existing among certain Jews, according to which the persecutions of Jews suffered in the course of history were caused by the rejection and envy of the non-Jews against the Jewish supremacism.” (Clark, Kenneth. Jews in Contemporary America. Problems in Identification. In Kiell, pp 111-127)

Judith Sills, a media psychologist, who got a PhD degree at the university New School for Social Research of New York, in her work Excess Baggage, published in 1993, complained about the fact that the Jews carry a psychic excess baggage with them, because they are too engaged in materialism and superiority. The weekly magazine Jewish Exponent, issued in Philadelphia, added some remarks to the opinion of Judith Sills, and this is cited by Teitelbaum: “Due to their materialism, the Jewish people carry with them a frightening amount of anger toward each other, and this makes the marriage of some adults extremely difficult in our community. The superiority, which is the other side of inferiority, generates malevolence from the part of the Christian majority, because they express this superiority in an offensive way: ‘I am special. I am valorous. I am better than you. I am a Jew, and you are just a goyim. I belong to the chosen people. I belong to a special tribe. You are only a shiksa.’” (Teitelbaum, Larry. Excess Baggage. Our Blind Spots Block Our Success, Author Says. Jewish Exponent, January 29 1993, p ix)

Another Jewish author, James Yaffe, thinks that the Jewish complex of superiority can be a constituting element of the adverse attitude. For a Jew, it is not enough that he is superior to a non-Jew, but he must let it know to the goyim. Sooner or later, the majority of the Jews will admit, shyly, apologetically, in a defensive manner, that, according to them, the Jews are cleverer that other people. This pride is deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition.

Benjamin Ginsberg stated in 1994 that the Jews, frequently secretly or openly, think themselves morally and intellectually superior to their neighbours. In the Yiddish language, the “goyischer kopf” is the synonym of “bubblehead” and “dumb”, i.e. such a Jew who thinks like a non-Jew. (Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. The University of Chicago press, Chicago and London, 1994)

It is worth the attention what another author, Gerald Krefetz writes: “Irrespective of what the Jews live on, should it be the control of a big chemical works or of a smaller shop in New York, they are strongly convinced of the fact that it is very important and stately what they are doing. This pride can be deceiving, but it still serves well the success of the Jewry. If someone over-evaluates himself, this increases his abilities and his self-confidence. Modesty and humility is not a Jewish characteristic.” (Krefetz, Gerald. Jews and Money. The Myths and the Reality. Ticknor and Fields, New Haven and NY, 1982)

The sect Chabad Lubavitch on the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles

Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) controlled the biggest Jewish organization in the world. That religious movement led by him is called Chabad Lubavitch, but it is also mentioned separately, either as only Lubavitch or only Chabad. Schneerson was the seventh and also the last sacred leader of the movement, who was frequently called Rebbe of Lubavitch or just simply Rebbe by his followers. The movement, which, by the present day, has become the most influential movement of the Jewish religion, came to life in the 1700s, in a Polish-Russian town, Lubavitch, as one of the numerous variants of Chassidism. This trend was in a close connection with the Jewish orthodox mysticism, which was characterized, beside others, by the unconditioned respect toward the dynasty leading the movement. The adepts, faithful Chassid followers of the Rebbe dynasty often wore distinctive clothes.

The cult of Rebbe Schneerson took even extreme forms. Some of his followers took him to be the Jewish Messiah, and, allegedly, even Schneerson himself admitted it to be true. The masters of the Lubavitch movement considered him a divine being, asserting that the Rebbe is really the bearer of the divine essence, he can exert an unlimited effect on anything, knows everything, and is worthy of the respect full of adoration. Several secular Jews and the followers of other trends of the Jewish religion do not agree with this and do not accept the practice and theology of Chassidism. Nevertheless, the Chabad Lubavitch is a well-known huge social and political force in the life of the present-day Jewry.

The New York Times wrote about Chabad Lubavitch in 1994 that it is one of the most influential and most disputed powers of world Jewry. In our days, altogether three thousand six hundred Chabad institutions operate in more than one thousand cities of seventy countries, and the movement has two hundred thousand followers. The religious ceremonies of the Chabad are attended by one million people yearly. Several universities have Chabad centres, and, through the internet, they reach many hundreds of thousand children, and many of them take part in the summer camps organized by the Chabad.

According to The New York Times, the religious empire led by Schneerson, extending from the streets of Brooklyn to the main roads of Israel, already received donations amounting to yearly one hundred million dollars in 1990. Mobile camps operate in the United States, the role of which is to popularize the Lubavitchian way of life among the Jewish communities. The book publishing centre of the Lubavitch in Brooklyn is the world’s biggest Jewish book distributor. The Chabad propagates that the Jewish soul is totally different from the soul of the non-Jew.

Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky published, in 1999, in London, at the Pluto Press, their book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. The erudite authors publish several quotations from the teachings of Schneerson Rebbe:

This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world … The difference of the inner quality, however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species.”

“An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.”

“As has been explained, an embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood.”

“The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews.”

“The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim.”

“The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews.”

The teachings of Schneerson Rebbe are consciously minimized, mistranslated or totally ignored and kept silent. Schneerson’s messages to his followers were published in a book in 1965 in Israel. In spite of the fact that, by the becoming a powerful movement of the Chabad, also the importance of Schneerson increased, still this book was not issued in English.

Shahak and Mezvinsky write that all more educated Israeli Jews know the facts relating to the Israeli Jewish society. These facts, nevertheless, are almost unknown for those Jews who do not live in Israel and do not speak Hebrew, and therefore cannot read what the Jews write for themselves in Hebrew language.

In the obituary published on the occasion of Schneerson’s death, The New York Times called the Rebbe a great political power in Israel, who has a great influence both in the Knesset and among the electors. The New York newspaper, nevertheless, did not give any details about the nature of the impact exerted by the Rebbe on the Israeli society and political life. Allan Brownfeld, the editor of Issues, the magazine of the American Council for Judaism, writes the following, in the above mentioned study about Jewish fundamentalism, about Schneerson’s views about Israel:

Lubovitcher Rebbe always supported Israeli wars and opposed any retreat. In 1974 he strongly opposed the Israeli withdrawal from the Suez area. He promised Israel divine favors if it persisted in occupying that land.”

After Rabbi Schneerson’s death, thousands of his Israeli followers, who continued to hold the views expressed in the above quoted passage, played an important role in Netanyahu’s election victory. Among the religious settlers in the Occupied Territories the Chabad Hassids constitute one of the most extreme groups. Baruch Goldstein, the mass murderer of Palestinians, was one of them.

Another well-known Chabad Chassid is Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who was a student of Schneerson, and, in our days, leads a big Chabad institute on the West Bank. Ginsburgh praised that Goldstein who killed twenty-nine Palestinians while they were praying. Ginsburgh does not deny even the fact that he regards all non-Jews subhuman beings, not reaching a human level. Ginsburgh considers it important that the Halachist and Cabbalist order of values should be taken into account, which lays a great emphasis on the differentiation of the Jews from the non-Jews, and not only separates, but also hierarchically opposes them. (The Halacha is the general denomination of the Jewish law, it includes the measure-giving final decisions, as well as the most specific questions. As a Jewish law system, the Halacha comprises all aspects and relations of life, the contacts between man and man, as well as those between man and God. Since the Halacha comprises everything, we can even say that the Jewish religion itself also comprises everything.)

Motti Inbari, associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, USA, stated that, according to the standpoint of Ginsburgh, the Jews form a chosen people, who were created by God in his own image, while, on the contrary, the non-Jews do not have such a status, and must be regarded subhuman beings, not reaching a human level. Inbari thinks that Ginsburgh’s theological approach means the continuation of such views, which were widely spread in the Middle Age. For instance, the disposition of the ten commandments “Do not kill!” does not apply to the killing of non-Jews, since the “Do not kill!” forbids the killing of human beings, and if a non-Jew is not considered a human being, then this disposition of the ten commandments does not apply to him. (Motti Inbari: Jewish Fundamentalism and the Temple Mount: Who Will Build the Third Temple? State University of New York Press, Albany, 2009)

According to Inbari, Rabbi Ginsburgh, in principle, could even imagine that, if a Jew needs a liver in order to survive, it is permissible to force a non-Jew to pass his liver to him. On 20th April 1996, in the weekly magazine Jewish Week, Lawrence Cohler related about Ginsburgh’s teachings and their problematic roots in the Jewish written tradition. Cohler, one of Ginsburgh’s colleagues, who took part, as a co-author, in the writing of the book The King’s Torah, states that the Jewish law occasionally allows the killing of the non-Jew newborn. The overwhelming majority of the Israelis refute these extremist opinions, and the Jewish religious authorities confine themselves from them. They refer to the fact that “according to the Torah, all human beings are born in the image of God.”

In spite of this, the currently valid Israeli military manuals sometimes contain these extreme views. We have already mentioned that in a brochure written by a chief chaplain we can read the following: “In war, when our forces assault the enemy, they are allowed, what is more, the Halacha (the Jewish law) even requires from them, to kill even good civilians…”

These teachings of the rabbinate of the Israeli defense forces were valid in 2008 and 2009, when Israel attacked the Gaza Strip, surrounded from all parts, killed 1300 Palestinians and wounded 5300 more. The Israeli casualties amounted to 13 dead and 326 wounded. Stephen Lendman, living in Chicago, writes: “In 2007, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Mordechai Eliyahu, called the Israeli Army to kill the Palestinians in masses: If they do not surrender, after killing one hundred, we must kill one thousand more. And if, after killing one thousand, they still do not lay down their arms, we must kill ten thousand. And if they still resist, then one hundred thousand must be killed, what is more, even one million.”

The chairman of the Jewish Rabbinical Council formulates in this way: “In wartime, there is no such thing as hostile civilians. According to the rights comprised in our Torah, we must be merciful toward our own soldiers and it is them who must be saved… The lives of one thousand non-Jews are not worth as much as the nail on the finger of a Jew.” Schneerson had a great impact on a Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi, Manis Friedman. He was the synchronous interpreter of the Rebbe during his lectures. At present, Manis Friedman is the dean of the Jewish Studies Institute of Minnesota, and the newspaper Ha’aretz issued in Israel writes about him: “As most Chabad Lubavitch rabbis, Manis Friedman also conquered the hearts of many Jews with his charismatic speech about love and God. It was Friedman who helped Bob Dylan join the Chabad.” In our days, Friedman travels a lot, and already showed less warmth when he was asked about his opinion concerning how the Jews should treat their Arab neighbours. Friedman answered: “I do not believe in the western morality, that is in: do not kill civilians or children, do not destroy the holy places, do not fight in holiday periods, do not bomb the graveyards, and do not shoot until they do not shoot at you first, because this is immoral. The only way of the moral warfare is how the Jews do it: the holy places must be destroyed. The men, women, children and cattle must be killed.” (Magazine Moment: Ask the Rabbis – How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors? May – June 2009)

Shahak and Mezvinsky remarked that Schneerson made his statement about the Jews and non-Jews when the Rebbe was still the political ally of the Israeli Labour Party, and received a lot of support from the Israeli government. In the mid-1970s, nevertheless, Schneerson decided that the Labour Party was too moderate for him, and started to promote the parties located to far right. Ariel Sharon was one of the favourite politicians of the Rebbe. In return, Sharon supported him publicly, and delivered a moving speech in the Knesset at the death of Schneerson. (Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Pluto Press, 1999)

According to Allan Brownfeld, only few Americans are properly informed of the fact how strong the religion-rooted fundamentalist movement is in Israel. Jewish Americans do not take into account that narrow-minded ethnocentrism, which is supported by the rabbis of this movement. They do not know those Jewish sources to which these rabbis refer, sharply differentiating those moral obligations which are due to a Jew and to a non-Jew. Some early Chassid texts also contain the provision that the Jews are superior and the non-Jews are inferior. This is included in the Tanya, considered a classical text, taught even today, which is taken as the philosophical chief oeuvre of the Chabad.

Brownfeld also cites Rabbi Kook, who is considered to be the highly esteemed father of the Messianistic trend of the Jewish fundamentalism. Beside others, Kook said the following:”The difference between a Jewish soul and a non-Jewish soul – on different levels, regarding all of them – is greater and deeper than the difference between the human soul and the soul of the beasts.” Brownfeld emphasizes that this view is declared by the leaders of the settler movement of the occupied West Bank. Kook’s opinion is based on the works of Isaac Luria, which reflect the mystical mentality of the 16th century. One of the basic teachings of the Lurian Cabbala is the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and soul over the non-Jew soul and body. This Cabbala states that the world was created exclusively for the sake of the Jews. The existence of the non-Jews is only secondary.

According to Shahak and Mezvinsky, the knowledge of these dogmas is important, because without them it cannot be understood what motivates the warlike settlers of the West Bank. According to the fundamentalist Jewish religious ideology, all that is non-Jew is the earthly incarnation of Satan, and the definition “human being” refers exclusively to Jews, according to the Jewish law.

Yehoshafat Harkabi, who earlier was the chief of the Israeli military intelligence, in his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, issued in 1988, mentions that the extreme religious views are not widely dominant. The truth is that the nationalist religious extremists are not lunatic blusterers at all. Many of them are highly esteemed public personalities, listened to by many people.

Brownfeld remarks that the Messianistic fundamentalists represent only a relatively small part of the Israeli population, but their political influence is ever increasing. They despise the non-Jews, but their hatred toward those Jews who oppose their views is even greater. Brownfeld also mentions the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who wanted to make peace with the Palestinians. He was only one in the long row of the Jews who were assassinated, because they followed a way that was different from that one prescribed the Rabbinic authorities.

Rami Rosen writes in his article published in Ha’aretz in 1996: “A check of main facts of the [Jewish] historiography of the last 1500 years shows that the picture is different from the one previously shown to us. It includes massacres of Christians [by Jews]; mock repetitions of the crucifixion of Jesus that usually took place on Purim; cruel murders within the family; liquidation of informers, often done for religious reasons by secret rabbinical courts, which issued a sentence of ‘pursuer’ and appointed secret executioners; assassinations of adulterous women in synagogues and/or the cutting of their [the women’s] noses by command of the rabbis.”

Rosen simply proves that the members of the Jewish people – similar to the other religious communities, the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus and other peoples – have also committed atrocities during the history, sometimes in the name of the religion. The only difference is that they mostly do not say a word about this in the United States. This silence, nevertheless, does not change the facts. So, the American mass-media very rarely informs about how hostile the extremist Israeli settlers are against the Christians, and about that it even happened that the peace activists arrived on the West Bank were told during a non-violent demonstration: “We killed Jesus, and we are going to kill you either.”

Is it good for the Jews if Europe loses its identity?

A newspaper issued in Israel related, on 13th November 2012, on the views of Israeli Rabbi Baruch Efrati. According to the Rabbi, the Jews must welcome the fact that the Christian Europe loses its self-identity. This is a punishment for what they did with the Jews during centuries, when they lived in exile in Europe.

Rabbi Baruch Efrati, who leads a yeshiva school and is the rabbi of Efrat, a town on the West Bank, was asked once, on the occasion of a public debate, why he approves the Islamization of Europe. Efrati answered the question in writing. He argued that, from ethical and theological reasons, a Muslim Europe would be better than a Christian Europe. “We shall never forgive the European Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and old people… Not only in the case of the holocaust that happened lately, but consequently, along generations, which is characteristic for the hypocrisy of all Christian churches.”

“Europe now loses its self-identity for the sake of another people, another religion, and there will be neither remnants, nor survivors of the Christian immorality, that had shed so much blood, which it is not able to remedy.” To this, he added that the Jews must pray so that the Islamization of Europe should not cause any harm and damage to the people of Israel.

We have quoted a few lines from the views of Rabbi Baruch Efrati, because many Jews express similar views. Nevertheless, most of them would never admit openly that they hate the Christians and they hate the white, non-Jew people. As also Rami Rosen exposed, the persecution of Jews in Europe, in most cases, was the response of the receiving people and state to the Jewish behaviour proved to be incompatible. It is a historical fact that the Jews that settled down in different countries of Europe usually intervened in the life of the receiving people, and, in many cases, changed their local customs and commercial practice at the detriment of the majority. Firstly, it was the money lending on usury that generated the antipathy and resistance against them. None of the receiving peoples obliged them to take usury. But the Jews did it, whenever they could. In the course of history, they were really punished for this behaviour, and they were forced to leave the receiving countries more than one hundred and fifty times in the past one thousand years.

From the above, it is visible that the message, order of values and life concept of the Judaism does not address all peoples and all human beings. Its moral teachings are not universal. Judaism is a religion expressing the needs, interests and values of a single people, which is not based on the relation between God and mankind, but on that special agreement or contract made by God with the chosen people, according to the religious legends and myths, on Mount Sinai. In order to survive, this people must separate itself from other human beings, because, if not, it would assimilate, and would live over in other nations, similar to other peoples in world history. If the Jewry chose this way, many of its conflicts would be solved, but it would lose that special status of God’s chosen people, standing above all peoples.

When the present chapter was written, the following Jewish anecdote arrived from America through the internet. One of the American Jew businessmen speaks to his friend, telling him: he sent his son to Israel for one year in order to acquire the Jewish community life and culture. When he returned home, he told that he felt good there, but he became Christian. His friend answered to this that he also sent his son there, and, when he came back, he also said that he became Christian. The two friends decided to go to the Rabbi and ask for his advice. To their surprise, the Rabbi answered that he also sent his son to Israel, and he also returned as a Christian. So they had better ask God. All three started praying, and, at once, they could hear the voice of the Omnipotent: “I also sent my son to Israel…”

Jesus, the Son of God, preached: “My kingdom is not of this world, and the people of God is not the Israel of the flesh, but the Israel of the soul, my holy town is not the earthly, but the heavenly Jerusalem, and the not tribal, but universal God is the God of each and every man, who follows His commandments. Not the hatred and the revenge is important, but that we should love each and every man, if someone throws a stone at you, throw a piece of bread back to him, whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also.” Jesus taught that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, and asked us to love our neighbours as ourselves, and whatever we wish that others would do to us, we should do to others. Jesus, the preacher of love, applied violence only once, when he drove out the profiteering money-changers and merchants from the temple with a whip.

Our Europe leans on two pillars: on the Greek-Roman high culture and on Christianity. Who denies and rejects the Christian order of values, the belonging to the Christian cultural sphere, is not a European any more.


Double citizenship and dual loyalty

We all, living human beings, form a genetic community with our blood ancestors. When we are born, we usually become sons and daughters of an ethnic forming also a bigger linguistic-cultural, historical and traditional community, of a given people. If this people also forms an organized community endowed with a national identity consciousness, we can say that we are born into a nation. The nation, endowed with a strong identity consciousness, in lucky circumstances, may have a country of its own. The highest form of the self-determination of a people organized into a nation is the nation state functioning on the basis of the ethnic principle. The population of the other type of state, the state functioning on the basis of the constitutional principle, is integrated into citizens by the law and order, the equality before the law, as well as the common rights and obligations. The inhabitants of a country, of different ethnics and languages, can also form a constitutional community based on the equality of rights. Nevertheless, on the basis of belonging both to the ethnic and to the constitutional nation, the citizens are responsible to the state the citizens of which they are.

For a long time, it was natural that someone is the citizen of only one state, and is loyal exclusively to that state. Nevertheless, in the course of history, more and more such situations emerged when certain people became the citizens of two or more states. This immediately raised the question: which citizenship is primordial for these persons having a double obligation. This becomes an important question especially when the two countries get into a clash of interests or even an open conflict with each other.

In the United States, at the beginning of World War II, it would have been impossible for Japanese-American double citizens to fulfil responsible functions. The Americans of Japanese origin, born in the United States, detaining only American citizenship, were taken to concentration camps and interned. In their case, the ethnic origin – visible in external signs, and which could not be kept secret – was enough for the presumption of the double loyalty.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the conflicts of the Middle East diverted the attention to the problem of double citizenship in America. The interest of the United States is to conduct an equilibrated foreign policy toward the Arab countries and peoples in the region, rich in energy resources. This would oblige Washington to avoid the unilateral approach in the respect of Israel and the Arab World. The power elite justified the war on Iraq by the fact that this country detains weapons of mass destruction, furthermore it had to do with the tragedy of 9/11, for which it deserves punishment. Nevertheless, in a couple of years it was proved that the series of attempts was a part of a thoroughly prepared and profoundly thought over plan, the real aim of which was the enforcement of Israel’s strategic position, with the disconnection of a rival state, Iraq.

The preparation of the war on Iran is underway, which is in contradiction with the interests of America in many respects. It would serve only the strategic goals of Israel – and of the cosmopolite money rule world elite which created and supports it – if the attack against Iran took place, and, at the same time, American soldiers would shed their blood, and the expenses of the war would also be covered by the American taxpayers.

Stephen Walt, professor at Harvard University, and John Mearsheimer, professor at University of Chicago, in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, with an objectivity characteristic to scholars of high erudition, called the attention to determining role of the Israel Lobby in establishing the foreign policy of the United States. They listed in detail the facts which prove that the Israel Lobby enforced such foreign policy decisions, which were in flat contradiction to the interests and security of the American people. This policy was most frequently executed by such high-ranked, appointed decision-makers, who were double, American-Israeli citizens. The policy supported by them was useful exclusively only for Israel, and was provably detrimental for America. When the double citizen American decision-makers had to choose between their double loyalty, they always favoured Israel.

In the American public debates, more and more referred to the fact that “you cannot serve two kings” and you cannot be equally loyal to two countries at the same time. According to the critics, the double citizens are, in fact, faithful to only one of their homelands; they only feign loyalty to the other one. Nevertheless, they accept that someone loves Israel and is unconditionally faithful to it, until he lives in Israel, and, as the soldier of the Israeli Army, he himself fights for the interests of his chosen homeland, Israel. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister said: “The basis of Zionism is neither friendship nor sympathy but the love of Israel, of the state of Israel … It must be unconditional love. There must be complete solidarity with the state and people of Israel.”

The Jewish people, forming a community of origins, religion, values, traditions and culture, as well as an economic and financial community, was fighting steadily, until the French revolution, for the equality in rights of the citizens, the abrogation of regulations prescribing the separation, for the full emancipation. The latter, nevertheless, required not only the integration into the receiving people and state, but also the assimilation, that is the total identification with and melting into the receiving people and nation state. The strict religious traditions of the chosen people prescribe the obligatory ethnic-religious separation, because the sui generis Jewish identity can be preserved only in this way. This separation, on the other hand, hinders the melting-in, the assimilation. The totally assimilated Jew cannot be considered a Jew any longer, but American, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, or even Hungarian.

This dilemma can be dissolved in several ways. The most obvious solution is if the Jewish people has a national home of its own, an own national state, where the person following the Jewish tradition and order of values must be emancipated in a society following the Jewish law and order. In this case, the ethnic, racial, religious and tradition community integrates organically into the nation state representing the Jewish law and order.

Nevertheless, most of the Jewish communities living, as a world nation, in the diaspora, the “galut”, are attached to the receiving country and state where they live. If the Jewry does not want to assimilate into the nation state maintained by the receiving people, then it must create its own organization system, within the framework of which it can live, well separated, an autonomous and authentic Jewish life, fully preserving its Jewish identity. This is only possible if the Jewry differentiates itself organizationally – in its way of life and identity consciousness – from the other human beings belonging to the receiving people, and excludes the receiving non-Jew majority from its organizations. The belonging to the authentic Jewish culture and the complying community life is not preconditioned by the following of the Jewish religion. Gnostic, cabbalist, agnostic, atheist, secular and cosmopolitan Jews can also live a full quality Jewish community life, if they organize well their communities and they separate themselves duly even culturally.

The problem occurs when the organized Jewry demands the control over the state, as well as the economic, social and cultural life of the receiving nation. If they stick to the separation, in order to stay Jews and to prevent the danger of emancipation, they will make a minority, compared to the native inhabitants of the given nation state. Many Jewish public personalities and social researchers, among them professor Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University, Atlanta, called the assimilation even more dangerous than the holocaust, from the point of the survival of the Jewish existence and culture.

Anyway, on what legal and moral basis can a self-separated minority vindicate for itself the control of the economic, social and cultural life, as well as of the state power from the majority? For this, they should undertake – even better than the most committed leaders of the majority – the needs, interests and values of the majority, and enforce them in the public life. This could be achieved only rarely in history. The stubborn separation and overemphasized “otherness” of the organized Jewry triggered the feeling of strangeness in the receiving societies. The Jewish organizations could examine which behaviour of the Jewry caused the appearance of such feeling in certain European nations, which they called “race-strangeness”, “nation-strangeness” or “otherness”. One of the expressions of this is what today is called “strange-heartedness”. This is the formulation of the lack of the sincere – even emotionally motivated – voluntary sharing the responsibility with the receiving people. The separation necessarily generates the feeling of strangeness, of otherness in the receiving majority society. The Jewish self-criticism concerning this hardly exists; always the receiving communities are rendered blamable. The thorough and objective research, nevertheless, could enrich our common knowledge even in this field with valorous information, and could enhance the more harmonic coexistence of the organized Jewry and the receiving societies.

The Jew-image of the anti-Semite is only a “phantasmagoria”

A Hungarian researcher, Magdolna Marsovszky, writes in her article Anti-Semitism in Hungary, or How Can an Ideology Swing into Violence? (Galamus, 9th January 2011) that many people answer the question “What is anti-Semitism?” with saying that it is “anti-Jewishness”. There are many who regard anti-Semitism a phenomenon that can be expressed with “world view”, “metaphysics of this world”, “universally increased projective identification” or with other similar and very, very clever and profound special terms. In the anti-Judaism preceding the enlightenment, the determining factor was the religion. Due to the secularization developed after the enlightenment, not the religion was the determining factor, but the people’s character. Through the universalism of the enlightenment and the right of the reason, the way was opened also for the Jews toward the integration into the Christian society. An answer to this was the shifting of anti-Judaism toward the anthropology. It was not enough to regard the anti-Semitism as anti-Jewishness, but it became practical to determine it also as an anthropological term. This meant that, with the emancipation, the liberalism assured advantageous conditions for the individual and collective assimilation of the Jews. In this way, the Jews were not identifiable or hardly identifiable externally, as the members of the Jewish community. With the transformation of anti-Judaism into anti-Semitism, the stereotypes, by which earlier a certain, well identifiable group was marked, gained an individual status. This made it possible that these views could be related also to such persons and groups which already had nothing to do with the Jewish religion any more.

In the anti-Semitism research in Germany, it is an accepted thesis that the cause of anti-Semitism can be found neither in the Jewish religion, nor in the actual behaviour of the Jews. Namely, according to the German researchers, the anti-Semitism is in no causal relation with the real Jews, i.e. with those people we can actually meet and who have a Jewish identity. These fellow human beings of us are usually called “empirical Jews” by the German researchers. The experiences gained about the individual Jewish people and on the organized Jewry are determining. Nevertheless, not the “empirical Jews” are in the centre of the anti-Semitism research, but, only and exclusively, the subjective Jew-image of the anti-Semite person. And the image created on the Jews by the anti-Semite is nothing else than a phantasmagoria.

This scientific-like statement, which contains serious logical mistakes even at first reading, does not speak of the collective behaviour and objectively existing life strategy of the organized Jewry, and does not define at all what Semitism is.

On the basis of the law of action and counteraction, we find it logical that the Reformation was first and it was followed by anti-Reformation. In a similar way, it would be logical that it was the Semitism first, which, as a counter-response, was followed by the anti-Semitism. Bernard Lazare (1865-1903), the French Jew historian who declares himself a Zionist, wrote a book titled Anti-Semitism. In this book, beside others, he states that in all places where the Jews settled down, the anti-Semitism i.e. the anti-Jewry appeared. Lazare himself did not find the anti-Semitism a lucky expression, which was in use only from the end of the 19th century. The aim of the term anti-Semitism was to give a philosophical and metaphysical interpretation to the conflict between Jews and Christians, against the emphasizing of the material and financial causes. According to the not only Jew, but also Zionist Lazare, if the aversion and antipathy between the Jews and Christians were present only in certain periods and certain countries, then only the local causes should be researched. He writes about this the following:

“This race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to divers races, as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of antisemitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it.

This does not mean that justice was always on the side of Israel’s persecutors, or that they did not indulge in all the extremes born of hatred; it is merely asserted that the Jews were themselves, in part, at least, the cause of their own ills. Considering the unanimity of antisemitic manifestations, it can hardly be admitted, as had too willingly been done, that they were merely due to a religious war, and one must not view the strife against the Jews as a struggle of polytheism against monotheism, or that of the Trinity against Jehovah. The polytheistic, as well as the Christian nations combated not the doctrine of one sole God, but the Jew.”

Therefore, Bernard Lazare does not say less than that although the anti-Semitism has many causes, we have to try to find the first and determining cause in the attitude and spirituality of the organized Jewry as a collectivity. This is said by a Zionist Jew about that Jewry, which lives in autonomous communities among the different receiving peoples. Of course, Bernard Lazare can be qualified a “self-hating” Jew, but it would be useful for such an anti-Semitism researcher with scientific ambitions as Magdolna Marsovszky to consider the fact that the anti-Semitism can be understood also an answer to the Semitism of the Jews.

The Frankfurt School of Philosophy (Theodore Wiesegrund Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Carl Grünberg, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Friedrich Pollock, Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas) really contributed to a great extent to the fact that the German society achieved successes in the “processing of the past”. The School of Frankfurt took anti-Semitism as an ideology, in the centre of which not the “empirical Jews” stand, but the Jew a “phantasmagoria”. This is used to be called as “anti-Semitism without Jews”. So, the Frankfurt School members suggested that we should not deal with the phenomenon or the object bearing it, but only with the mental reflection of it, that is we should try to find the distortions showing up on the appearing image in the faults of the mirror, and not in the objective reality only reflected on the image of the mirror.

“Anti-Semitism without Jews”

In the money rule world order, all human activity is surrendered to the money system. This system is the common achievement of mankind, but the super-rich Jewish banker dynasties played and play a determining role in its creation and forcing to the world, who are the main beneficiaries of this system. Where this money system works, there the one-dimension system of values developed in the Jewish culture is determining. The money system takes over the conveying of the Jewish spirituality in all spheres of social life. It enforces that everybody should live and act according to this order of values in the centre of which is the money. Today this money system is the main embodiment of the Semitism. In the societies that are forced to live in the money rule world order, the Jewish order of values – as an unavoidable regulating force – can be present and is present even without Jews.

On world scale there are forty-three thousand transnational corporations. All of them are owned by 147 giant banks, which financial institutions, in turn, are owned by that money order world elite, which is made up by 300 super-rich banker dynasties and altogether six thousand natural persons, the majority of which are Jews or of Jewish origin. All this is about the globally organized private power. Not only the structure and operation of this hierarchy bears upon it the nearly all essential marks of the Jewish tradition and culture, but even its spirituality and world strategy is rooted in the collective behaviour of the organized Jewry. The critical attitude toward this money rule world order can be called “anti-Semitism without Jews”, but, if we do only this, then this is a disinformation serving unambiguously the delusion, and, in fact, only helps to consolidate, to pour into concrete, the rule of the Zionist money rule world elite.

What is Semitism?

Semitism is separation and double measure. Semitism propagates that it is advantageous to belong to a privileged minority. According to the Jewish public personalities, a Jewish renascence is going on in Hungary in our days. Beside the communities following the Jewish religious traditions, several non-religious organizations operate. Who is not a Jew according to religion, can be a Jew on ethnic, genetic or blood descent basis. If even this bound is not attractive enough for him, he can still join, on interest, the separating and excluding Jewish communities, since it is better to belong to a community which members help each other than to none. The similarly feeling and thinking communities can enhance the successful business enterprises, the belonging to the contact networks, the organized and quick information receipt, the obtaining of credits, and can bring a lot of advantages as well. Anyway, who is left out of the organized Jewry, must share the – often disadvantageous – fate of the majority. Namely, in the money rule world order, it is not always advantageous to belong to the majority.

One of the essential characteristics of Semitism is the double moral, the specific relationship to the universal moral. The Semitism finds nothing wrong in the fact that the member of the privileged group could get rich on the work of others, and obtain, even in a dishonest way, unworthy advantages. This can generate reticence in the outsiders. Therefore, the organic part of Semitism is the propagation of the fact that we have to be afraid of everybody who feels the privileged status of the separating minority detrimental. And the fear gives birth to hatred or even revenge. And who experiences and suffers this Semite behaviour, can easily decide to turn against it, and become, from self-defence, anti-Semite.

Let us just quote this sentence, equal with volumes, written by the Jew Mihály Kornis in the December 1993 issue of the magazine Beszélő: “We hate you much more than you hate us.” What is more, Chief Rabbi József Schweitzer declared in the Hungarian Parliament on 17th April 2001, off the record, but provable with ear witness, the following: “You, Hungarians, are the shame of Eastern Europe. I will dedicate all my life, together with my people, to do you harm wherever I can.”

Dear anti-Semitism researcher Magdolna Marsovszky, don’t you think that this spirituality can generate, as an answer reaction rooted in self-defense, the anti-Semite “phantasmagorias”?

How can the dilemma of the Hungarian Jewry be solved?

This dilemma – i.e. to separate from the Hungarian nation and to still be equal with it – can be solved in several ways. One of the solutions is when this well self-organized minority – which “carries on its back its own state and law and order”, and detains a strong emotional and intellectual cohesion, based on a many thousand year past – feigns that they are completely loyal to the majority. They assert of themselves that they are an organic part of the majority ethnic, they identify themselves with the history of the receiving people, its tragedies, its fate problems, its whole spirituality, and they only differ from them in their religion. This solution of the dilemma seems to be practicable, but the question arises here also, namely to what extent is a member of the Hungarian nation that atheist fellow citizen of us, who does not follow the Jewish religious traditions, but still considers himself, rightly, a full-value Jew.

An inseparable part of the secularized Jewish life is that the organized Jewry forms also a community of values and interests, not only an ethnic, blood, racial and tradition community. In this, a huge role is played by the solidarity and tribal cohesion, obligatory even among the non-religious Jewry, by the building and maintenance of the contact network. And the loyalty to the separating Jewish people and to its nation state, Israel, is competing with the loyalty to the receiving people and its nation state.

The other possible solution is when they try to decrease the feeling of otherness and strangeness of the Jewry, caused by their separation, in the receiving society, by altering the culture of the receiving nation, weakening its national consciousness, hindering and eliminating its organizational life of national character. To this, it is necessary to over-emphasize cultically the respect of the otherness, to fragment and dismantle the receiving society into mosaic-like, smaller, non-viable cultural units, with the propagation of multiculturalism, to enforce the inner separatism, until the atomization. This is one of the cosmopolitan, leftist liberal variants of the principle “divide and rule”.

The altering of the national self-identity, the elimination of the organizations maintaining the national consciousness enhances the achievement of that demand of the Jewry sticking to their separation, according to which they “should separate, but should still stay totally equal” with those from whom they separated themselves. When the organized Jewry separates, they know well who is the member of the Jewish community and who is not. On the other hand, those who they separated themselves of, cannot know who are those who chose the belonging to the organized Jewry, as their prime community. If they still want to know this, they will be qualified as anti-Semite excluders, since they, the Jews, keep records on those who are their Jewish compatriots. “I can know and I do know that you are not a Jew, but you cannot know that I am.” Nevertheless, the organized Jewry choosing the separation is not regarded anti-Hungarian only because he favours his Jewishness to his Hungarianness. Those who would like to understand those who are thinking within the double category of “Us” (Hungarians faithful to the nation) and “Them” (the Jews, who insist on being others and thus they are aliens, “strange-hearted”), will have to try to find the roots of this phenomenon in the Jewish traditions. Our Jewish fellow citizen can be a Hungarian for several centuries, but he is a Jew for several thousand years. Which of his identities is stronger?

The Jews living outside Israel live, as a world people, on different continents, in several countries. Many of them feel that they are strangers in the non-Jewish (Christian, Islamic and other) cultures, and therefore they find it necessary to establish a multicultural society, integrated on racial basis, in the given country, which will be tolerant toward the anti-assimilation life strategy, followed for a long time by the Jewry and toward their strong ethnic-racial solidarity. In the multicultural society, composed from the mosaics of the racially integrated communities, the Jewish communities feel much secure and it is easier for them to obtain the power positions of the given society and nation state. The strategy of the organized Jewry, as a world people, is that they support everywhere, except Israel, the mixing of the white population with the non-white (black, Asian, Arab, Latino and gypsy) population, and, at the same time, condemns all racial manifestations of the inner solidarity of the native Europeans and their self-defence organizations. In fact, all this supports the organized Jewry serving the money rule world elite, and Israel’s long-term interests, based on racial separation.

In her book Denying the Holocaust (New York, 1994), the already cited Deborah Lipstadt condemns those white Americans who oppose the termination of the racial discrimination and the marriage between whites and coloured people. At the same time, Deborah Lipstadt strongly opposes the intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews, because it leads to assimilation. In 1964 and 1965, Lipstadt took part in those civil rights demonstrations where the participants demanded equal rights for the coloured Americans. In spite of this, Deborah Lipstadt wholeheartedly supports that Israel, which differentiates on racial basis between its Jewish and Arab inhabitants. Due to the racial discrimination, several public personalities already labeled the Jewish state an apartheid state. In a hypocrite way, Deborah Lipstadt applies a double standard, because she claims the racial equal rights, emancipation from everybody, while she most strongly opposes the marriage between the Jews and non-Jews, and the assimilation of Jews. In the above mentioned book, she wrote: “We know what we are fighting against: against the anti-Semitism, as well as against the criticism of the assimilation, the mixed marriages and Israel.”

The fact that in Hungary, in the political public discourse, the problem of anti-Semitism, assimilation and “nation-strangeness” gained again ground, shows that this dilemma of the Jewish existence could not be solved. This causes tension in the relation between the organized Jewry and the Hungarian society, the organized Hungarians – the Hungarian nation. It is not the revival of an unfunded prejudice, but a social problem, unsolved up to the present day. Those people are right who say that it is necessary to think over: what is the Hungarian and who is Hungarian? But it also needs thinking over: what is the Jew and who is Jew? It is true, one can be a Hungarian in many ways – as inhabitants of the country, as citizens, and as self-conscious and even emotionally committed members of the Hungarian nation –, as one can be a Jew also in many ways. There are Hungarian Jews who are loyal primarily to the Jewish community and Israel, and there are Jewish Hungarians whose hearts already beat for Hungary, for the Hungarian nation, and who are linked primarily to the Hungarian national community by their intellectual-emotional bounds. They are the Jews assimilated into the Hungarian nation, who are endowed with Hungarian spirituality, with individual and collective Hungarian consciousness.

The reference to anti-Semitism, in fact, avoids that research work which could reveal that, in the hardships of the coexistence between Hungarians and Jews, the contradictions of the Jewish existence also break up to surface: should they assimilate or stay Jew? If our Jewish compatriots choose the former, they, in fact, give up their Jewishness, and if they choose the latter, they give up their Hungarianness. How is it possible to become a true and faithful Hungarian, and, at the same time, to stay loyal to the communities of the organized Jewry, keeping the Jewish tradition, order of values and way of life? In other words: how is it possible for someone to become a Hungarian in soul, by acquiring the Hungarian culture, spirituality and sentiment, in the way that he rejects the assimilation and preserves his Jewish identity, consciousness of identity?

The questions raised here were already formulated several times. During the French revolution, as a result of the European enlightenment, the Jews, as individuals, received the full value French citizenship. Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre, descendant of a high-ranked French noble family, formulated, in 1789, his opinion on the Jewry, as a separating people:

Everything shall be denied to the Jews as a nation; everything should be granted to them as individuals. They are obliged to become [French] citizens. Some argue that they do not want to be. Let them say this themselves and let them be expelled. It is impossible for them to be a nation within a nation.

It is also worth the attention what Jonathan Stacks, the orthodox Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth said two hundred years later:

“Enlightenment thought had stressed the idea of universal humanity on one hand and the abstract individual on the other, freed from the constraints of tradition to make his own world of meanings through his choices. This was a language into which traditional Jewish identity could not be translated … The terms of emancipation liberated Jews as individuals, not as a collectivity.”

The key problem is to whom is the organized Jewry loyal primarily: to its communities or to the members of the receiving society? To whom will it be primarily loyal if a clash of interests and a conflict situation appears between the Hungarian state and Israel? And, for the Jewish communities living in the United States, this appears as follows: in a conflict situation will they choose America or Israel? To separate or to stay equal means almost always an insolvable dilemma. The members of the American Jewish communities qualify the mere raising of this problem as a malevolent anti-Semitism. They interpret their double commitment, their deep emotional bounds to Israel as something that is, in fact, one of the expressions of the American democracy.

The problem of the dual loyalty is illustrated well by the case of Jonathan Pollard in 1987. Pollard was born in America as a Jew, and worked at one of the most sensible department of the U.S. Marine. As a spy of the Israeli government, Pollard himself passed more than eight hundred strictly classified documents to the Jewish state, to which he was linked by a primary loyalty. For seventeen months, he was in daily contact with the members of the Israeli intelligence, of whom two were later advanced in rank. The American state prosecutor acting in the case, Joseph di Genova, stated that it was Jonathan Pollard who, in the 20th century, passed physically the biggest amount of most strictly classified information to a foreign state. When Pollard was arrested, the defense minister of the United States was Caspar Weinberger, who wrote about Pollard’s espionage, in his forty-six-page statement submitted to the Federal Court, that he “cannot imagine what could have caused a greater damage to the national security.”

On hearing the news, the National Jewish Committee warned everybody from standing up in Pollard’s defence just because he is a Jew. This would undermine the credit of the Jewish community, and would also do harm to Israel. It gradually came to light that the case is not as harmful to the Jewish community as it seemed earlier. One of the disturbing aspects of the Pollard case was that very few Americans realized what did in fact mean the real danger in Pollard’s treasonable behaviour. Following the outburst of the treason scandal, already in 1987, The New York Times and the CBS made a public-opinion research, which revealed that the majority of the Americans is uninformed concerning the essence of the Pollard case. Some 18% of the questioned non-Jews knew that Pollard spied for the benefit of Israel, and 13% thought that it was for the benefit of the Soviet Union. In the year of the treason scandal, the United States did not decrease the aid supplied to Israel, although several domestic programmes had to be erased from the federal budget in that year. Israel continued to get the usual military and economic aid amounting to three billion dollars, received in the previous year either. Only a few years have passed, when the Jewish community started to assert that Pollard was sentenced to a too long prison, and not because the committed crime, but because of the anti-Semitism present also in America.

The New York weekly magazine Jewish Week wrote in 1991 that Israel must get involved, confidentially, in the Jonathan Pollard case: “The founders of Israel imagined such a state which defends all Jews who suffered from anti-Semitism, should they be anywhere in the world. Without any doubt, Pollard is such a victim.”

Pollard’s attorney, Alan Dershowitz, thought that the public opinion sensibly changed to the favour of his client. This was expressed, beside others, by the fact that the American Jewish Congress and the West Bank B’nai B’rith urged the pardoning of Pollard. The sayanim spying for the benefit of Israel was supported also by Elie Wiesel and Philip Klutznick, former President of the World Jewish Congress.

In January 1996, the Tel-Aviv government granted, even formally, Israeli citizenship to Pollard, in spite of the fact that he was validly sentenced and incarcerated for espionage in the United States, a friendly ally. Pollard’s attorney expressed their hope that, similarly as in the case of war prisoners and persons disappeared during war, the Israeli government would also do everything for the release of Pollard. Israel admitted officially that Pollard spied for their benefit only in 1998.

A new development in the Pollard case was when the American Jewish community based the defense of the Israeli spy on the argument that the court sentence brought in his case cannot be regarded legitimate. This is not only about that the Pollard’s sentence to full life imprisonment was motivated by anti-Semitism, but also that Israel, in fact, was entitled to possess all that information that Pollard illegally misappropriated from the intelligence centres of the U.S. Army.

In the 1998 issue of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Anne Roiphe expressed her opinion: “It is possible that we still could not find the smoking rifle of anti-Semitism, but most of us think that Pollard’s too severe punishment, and the fact that why Israel did not detain those information which were given over to it by Pollard, is connected with anti-Semitism.”

Joseph Aaron, a well-known member of the American Jewish community, on the other hand, called it shameful that nearly all Jewish organizations undertook the defense of Pollard. They urged his release, referring to the fact that the real cause of his confinement was the anti-Semitism. Aaron added to this that, if it were so, all Americans in high offices should be regarded anti-Semite – should they be democrats or republicans, civil or military officers, should they belong to the legislative or governmental organizations. Namely, they all agree in that Pollard cause such an immeasurable damage to the United States that he had to be punished with life sentence. Nevertheless, the majority of the American Jews demanded his release, referring to the fact that “he did it for Israel”, as if this would diminish the weight of the crime.

After a couple of years, David Tenenbaum, a civilian engineer in the U.S. Army, confessed that he had given over to an Israeli intelligence officer top secret classified information originating from the Detroit centre of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive and Armament Command (TACOM). From the mid-1960s to the end of the 1980s, a number of forty investigations were started against such Americans who spied for the benefit of Israel. The CIA made a report in 1979, in which it stated that the members of the Israeli intelligence were making considerable efforts in order to obtain scientific and technical information. Within the framework of this, they attempted at obtaining classified defense projects in the United States and other Western countries. In 1971, the Swiss court sentenced Alfred Frauenknecht, a Jewish-Swiss engineer, to four and a half years in prison, because he had transferred to the Mossad altogether two hundred thousand blueprints and technical specifications related to the French-Swiss Mirage military jets.

Victor Ostrovsky, a former officer and intelligence agent of Mossad – who broke with his employer on moral grounds –, published his book titled By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer in 1990. Ostrovsky reported in his book that about two dozen Israeli agents are actively spying, recruiting, organizing and carrying out covert activities, mainly in New York and Washington, which they refer to as their playground. Throughout the world, many Jewish citizens of other nations function, voluntarily, as extensions of the Mossad, Israel’s CIA. They are called, in Hebrew, sayanim, and they do the most different services to the Mossad, from loyalty to the Jewish communities and Israel. According to Ostrovsky, these sayanim (assistants), are a unique and important part of the Mossad’s operation, and must be 100 per cent Jewish, both in terms of their origin and loyalty. They live abroad, and though they are not Israeli citizens, many are reached through their relatives in Israel. There are thousands of sayanim around the world. In London alone there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on the [Mossad] list. They fulfil many different roles. A car sayan, for example, running a rental agency, could help the Mossad get a car without having to complete the usual documentation. An apartment sayan would find accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank sayan could get you money if you needed it in the middle of the night, a doctor sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to police, and so on.

The idea is to have a pool of people available when needed who can provide services but will keep quiet about them out of loyalty to the cause. There will be Jewish persons who might not agree to satisfy certain requests of the Mossad, but you can still count on their silence. In this way, the Mossad has at its disposal a non-risk recruitment system that actually assures a pool of millions of Jewish people to tap from outside Israel’s borders.

In an unprecedented action, at Israel’s request, an American judge in 1990 banned the publication of Ostrovsky’s book; the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division later rescinded the censorship. The Israeli government claimed the book could imperil Mossad agents by making them identifiable. In 1995 Ostrowsky sued a Canadian television station that interviewed an Israeli journalist, who proclaimed on air that he hoped “a decent Jew in Canada” would assassinate the telltale former Mossad member. It is a fact, nevertheless, that Ostrovsky’s home in Canada was set to fire and burned down.

Dual loyalty, at present, is not the subject of public debate. It is widely accepted, and this has given rise to nakedly hostile and subversive statements by those obsessed with their Jewish identity. Let us consider the words of Jane Delynne, a successful American Jew lady writer and who was rewarded with several literary prizes. In her book titled Hitler’s World, published in 1989, summarized her opinion on the Jewish sell-identity consciousness: “The existence of Israel is the reaffirmation of Jews as the chosen people … Israel is suffused for me with a moral meaning absent from the existence of any other nation in the world. If there was a war between the United States and Israel, I would choose Israel. Sometimes I think I am secretly glad for its occasional brutality so that the world will know there is a monster out there — a monster who will never forget [the Holocaust]. Although in general I believe in nuclear disarmament, I am glad Israel has the atomic bomb, and the continued existence of Israel is the only cause for which I consider it justifiable to use nuclear weapons. Let me put this in its starkest and ugliest light: I am not sure, but I believe that, if the choice were between the survival of Israel and that of the remaining 4 or 6 billion people of the world, I would choose the 4 million [Jews]”

Such a sincere conviction merits serious attention, since Delynne is a highly recognized American Jew lady writer, showered with rewards. The deep identification with the Jewish people and Israel, expressed here, this fanatic undertaking of the community of fate can, partly, give an explanation to the fact that why so many American Jews are acting against the interests of the United States and on behalf of the Jewish State. They were instrumental in helping Israel secretly develop its own arsenal of nuclear bombs.

Seymour Hersh, in his detailed study of the clandestine origin of Israel’s nuclear program, titled The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York, 1991, p 58), notes that: A few American nuclear physicists were known to have emigrated to Israel after World War II; one was a veteran of the Manhattan Project [America’s nuclear bomb-making effort] who had worked until 1956 in the most sensitive areas of nuclear reactor design … The CIA had even been tipped off about the fact that Israel was raising large sums of money for Dimona [the site of Israel’s nuclear bomb center] from the American Jewish community.”

Ernst David Bergmann is considered the “founder” of the Israeli atom bomb. One of his friends was Lewis Strauss, the Jewish chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950s. Strauss knew well of Israel’s covert efforts to build nuclear weaponry. According to Seymour Hersh, Strauss’s [Jewish] background and his strong feelings about the Holocaust, cannot be disregarded in analyzing why he did not tell anyone about the fact that Israel made up premises for making nuclear weapons in Dimona. Strauss did not inform even John McCone, his AEC chairman predecessor and eventual head of the CIA. Thus, the issue of ‘dual loyalty’ has always been a very real concern to the American intelligence community since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Another American Jew, possibly influential in the development of Israel’s nuclear bombs, was Zalman Shapiro, who had a nuclear fuel processing business in Pennsylvania. Shapiro was an activist in the Zionist Organization of America. In 1965, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) found that 200 pounds of enriched uranium was missing from his company’s storehouses. After this, the CIA followed closely Shapiro’s longstanding ties to Israel, but neither the CIA nor the AEC never revealed that he had a secret, dual life. He had met and befriended secretly many of Israel’s senior nuclear scientists.

According to the already mentioned Anne Roiphe, the dual loyalty question is one that anti-Semites use to isolate the Jews politically in America. According to Roiphe, it is not worth discussing it, but adds: “But the truth is that … we are only Americans as long as America reins in its anti-Semites. We are Jews forever under all circumstances.”

Roiphe’s comments echo the well-known statement, in the 1940s, by the prominent American rabbi Stephen Wise: “I may have been an American for sixty-four years, but I have been a Jew for four thousand years.”

What are the roots of the Jewish dual loyalty?

To understand the origins of Jewish dual loyalty, we must reach back to a keystone of traditional Jewish identity: galut, a Hebrew word meaning “exile”. Originally grounded in religious conviction, the notion of galut has been emphatically renewed in contemporary Zionist secular ideology. The basic premise of galut is that Jews are everywhere estranged and alienated from the people and cultures around them. As Jews, they are intrinsically unfulfilled and restrained. This condition is innately irresolvable. The only true remedy for Jewish dissatisfaction in galut is – in both religious Orthodoxy and Zionist ideology – a return to the homeland of Israel. “The golah [galut/exile], and our attitude to it defines the essence of the Jew.” – says A.B. Yehoshua.

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, “the feeling of galut, of exile” has always been one of the most permanent and prolific incentives in Jewish thought. Samuel Heilman, professor of sociology at the City University of New York (CUNY), describes this traditional Jewish separatist view in his work titled Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry (New York, 1992, p 18) as follows: “Many of [the ultra-Orthodox] tried to remain strangers and sojourners in the contemporary secular world. That was the essential message they read in the promise by God in Leviticus 20:26: ‘And I will separate you from the nations to be for Me.’

One should not try to be a Frenchman, a German, an American, or even a secular Israeli or any other kind of citizen, but always a Jew. The world beyond the Jewish one was essentially evil and one must ‘distance oneself from it … so as to not learn its ways.’ Jews could never forget that they were in exile.”

The Romanian-born, British-American Jew writer and public personality, Maurice Samuel was a secular Zionist. In 1921 he became an American citizen, and, only three years later wrote his book titled You Gentiles, in which he sharply differentiates between Jews and non-Jews: “If I have long pondered this question of the Jews and gentile it is because I suspect from the first dawning of Jewish self-consciousness that Jew and gentile are two worlds, that between you gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf…. I do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable.”

This ancient religious self-perception of Jewish identity, equally manifest in a secular, usually Zionist form, has had a profound impact on mainstream Jewry’s general sense of its communal self and its position in the United States.

Shalom Carmy, an Orthodox Rabbi, who is one of the most remarkable philosophers in America, remarks in his article Religious Zionism Revisited, published in 1994, that “one way of keeping alive a sense of Galut in America is to inculcate an instinct to snideness toward ‘their’ [non-Jewish] culture, from baseball to apple pie. Another is to limit, as a matter of principle, active concern for the affairs of American society, to cultivate a studied ‘schadenfreude’ toward the moral adversities that rock it. The most forceful way of nursing an awareness of Galut, however, is to dwell on anti-Semitism.”

Carmy cites a faculty member at Vassar College [name deleted], who, during an academic conference about the subject, remarked: “My own feeling is that Galut is still very much part of the Jewish community. My self-conception of my Jewishness is always in tension with my identity as an American. And I presume that most American Jews feel the same … The assumption that Jews should desire to ‘integrate’ [into American society] seems wrong to me. Why should Jews desire to give up all they have suffered over the millennia? Why should Jews attempt to be like American Christians?”

“America may be a very comfortable and accommodating exile and may even be favorable to many forms of Jewish creativity”, remarked Bruce Saposnik of New York University at the same gathering. “Jews will choose to live here both comfortably and Jewishly. They will, nevertheless, always be living in exile.”

The role of the ethnic separatism in spying

Spying on behalf of another nation is the most powerful expression
possible of profound ethnic alienation of the person from the country in which he lives and against which he is willing to perform espionage. A spy consciously rejects his official nationality in order to act on behalf of another state, country and people. The facts show that Jews – living in exile among strangers – have figured so prominently in the history of anti-American espionage. According to Chaim Bermant, a Lithuanian-born English Jew writer: “An essential part of Jewishness is the feeling that one is an outsider”.

Jews are numerous in important positions of power throughout American society, including the military and defense contracting firms. In 1996 a Pentagon security office issued an internal memo. In it, they warned employees about Israeli efforts to steal military and intelligence secrets and deliver them to Israel. Jews were singled out as an example of susceptibility, by virtue of their “strong ethnic ties” to the Jewish State.

According to the internal memo, “placing Israeli nationals in key industries… is a [spying] technique utilized with great success”. The warning also cited Israeli theft of optics information and radar test equipment in the past. By any measure of rational, historical, moral, and experiential examination, the memo addressed an important question, which is, at the same time, a legitimate issue of concern. But modern America was completely paralyzed in coping with it. For fear of offending American Jewry, the Pentagon had to disavow and condemn the warning after it was leaked to a Jewish magazine.

Abraham Foxman, Director of Anti-Defamation League, which defends Jewish interests, called the Pentagon memo “a distressing charge, which impugns American Jews and borders on anti-Semitism.” Nevertheless, investigations of Jewish loyalties cannot be regarded as an unfunded, unjustified and unlawful security requirement. The issue of dual loyalty in the context of espionage has a very long history in the American Jewish community, with many disturbing precedents during the Cold War.

From the early 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union’s communist regime, a great amount of KGB and FBI documents have been increasingly accessible for scholarly examination. Historians examined the KGB and FBI archives and it is has become starkly clear that a remarkably large proportion of American spies for communist Russia were Jewish. They were instrumental in helping the Soviet Union secure American nuclear bomb secrets, as well as other espionage.

The weekly magazine Jewish Exponent is issued since 1887, and at present is considered the most remarkable publication of the Jewish Publication Group. This enterprise issues the Inside Magazine and the Guide to Jewish Philosophia. The Jewish Exponent wrote in March 1999:

“What has proven most disturbing, is the picture we have of the extent of the betrayal – truly overwhelming in sheer bulk. The fact that many Jewish radicals participated in espionage [for the Soviet Union] sticks in peoples’ throats … Spies, spies everywhere … [Recent books about the subject] are invaluable for what they add to our knowledge of the [Cold War] period and may yet spur a bout of soul-searching among the remnants of the progressive community in America, so many of whom were – and are – Jewish … [Such betrayers] allowed the Soviet Union to develop atomic weapons years before it may have been [otherwise] possible.”

Of course a variety of people worked as spies during the Cold War. Nevertheless, among the disturbing implications of recent revelations is that the Soviet side of the Russian spy system was in large part Jewish as well. A critical examination of the Soviet transnational spy system points in no small way to Jewish networking. A high-ranking KGB officer, Pavel Sudoplatov commented in his book Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness, (Boston, 1994) as follows:

“The men and women [in Russia] who were most influential in acquiring atomic bomb secrets for the Soviet Union were all later purged because they were Jewish [i.e., Soviet intelligence officers were eventually driven from the ranks because of allegations of a ‘Zionist conspiracy’ within it].”

Jewish scholars Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter noted in their book Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the New Left (New York, Oxford, 1982): “Allen Weinstein’s study, Perjury, seems to indicate that Jews constituted a substantial majority of known members of the Soviet underground apparatus in the United States during the 1930s. Soviet agents whose backgrounds were probably Jewish include J. Peters, Lee Pressman, Harry Dexter White, Marian Bachrach, Hedda Gompertz, and many others.”

On the American side of the Soviet spy network, perhaps the most famous spy case in American history centered on two Jewish communists, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Both were convicted and executed in 1953 for passing along secrets to the Soviet Union. Harry Gold and David Greenglass, their accomplices, were also Jewish. Until the recent intelligence disclosures, many Jews still angrily alleged that the Rosenbergs were innocent and their execution is an example of anti-Semitic malice. Recent investigations, however, as the Jewish Exponent commented, have lead to the inescapable conclusion that “the subjects were guilty as charged.”

Other American espionage agents for the Russians were Martin Sobell and Harry Magdoff. Both were Jews. There was also Nathan Silvermaster, a Russian-born economist who worked for the American Farm Securities Administration and established a network of friends in government to provide Soviets material and to aid the U.S.S.R. during World War II. It is also remarkable that, on the Soviet side, the cases were controlled also by intelligence officers of Jewish origin. The Rosenbergs’ Russian case officer was also Jewish, Sam Semyonov (real name: Abe Taubman).

A controversial and interesting personality was the fabulously wealthy American Jewish entrepreneur Armand Hammer, who was one of Lenin’s friends, so it is understandable that in Soviet Russia, where the large properties were immediately nationalized, he could keep his private property even after the Bolshevik takeover. Among others, he owned the largest asbestos mine in Russia. Today we already know how dangerous and carcinogen this material is, but it was also known by the more informed people that “the conditions under which the miners worked were horrendous even by Russia’s low standards” – as Edward Epstein reports. Hammer was also involved, through his firm United Distillers, in the mob-linked liquor business. After the alcohol prohibition introduced in the United States on 16th January 1920, he took part in the alcohol smuggling controlled by the mafia. Hammer did not hide away his wealth and had a rather shocking luxury lifestyle. Yet we now know that Hammer, though practically a stereotype of the rapacious capitalist, was in fact a Communist agent for decades, beginning as a secret courier for the Soviets delivering money from Russia to communist leaders in the United States. FBI files also indicate that Hammer laundered funds for the Soviet Union and recruited Soviet spies and positioned them in the United States government. Hammer had been, in the 1920s, a key link in a network that provided money to espionage rings in New York and London. A lifelong atheist, in later life Hammer reverted to his Jewish roots, choosing the bar mitzvah name Avraham Ben Yehuda Maccabee.

Even Marilyn Monroe, the famous Hollywood film star, helped, indirectly the Soviet Union, since her Jewish psychoanalyst, Ralph Greenson, was secretly an agent for the communist Comintern. Monroe had a series of romantic affairs, among them also with the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, and innocently shared information she gleaned from him with Greenson, who forwarded it to the Soviets.

Another case worth the attention is that of the also Jewish Samuel Dickstein, who was for fifteen years a Democratic Congressman from New York in the U.S. Congress. From 1937, he spied for the Russian NKVD (precursor to the KGB). His NKVD contact officer codenamed Dickstein “the Crook” because of his “mercenary instincts”. We can also mention that Congressman Dickstein was a founder of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the organization that sought to expose Russian communist agents in American government and popular culture in the 1950s. Ten of the nineteen people subpoenaed by HUAC were Jewish, as were six of the ten who were indicted by the committee.

The interest of the researchers was raised also by the fact that there were a significant number of Jews working on the American Los Alamos nuclear bomb project. Not only Americans, but also specialists from other countries like Hans Berthe, Emilio Segre and Richard Rhodes. The director of the atomic bomb program was also Jewish, J. Robert Oppenheimer. The chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in that era was also Jewish, David Lilienthal. At Los Alamos, Robert Oppenheimer cooperated with Enrico Fermi (who was not Jewish, but his wife was), and Leó Szilárd. Two Jewish Soviet agents, Gregory Kheifetz and Elizabeth Zarubin persuaded Oppenheimer to help, as a convinced antifascist, the Soviet scientists in developing their own atomic bomb. Enrico Fermi and Leó Szilárd collaborated with the Soviet spies operating in Tennessee, Los Alamos, and Chicago as assistants in those three nuclear labs.

From Soviet size, the relationship with the Jewish spy rings operating in America was also kept by Jews. In the early 1950s, when Stalin started his anti-Jewish purges, lots of these contact persons were removed from their jobs due to their Zionist attitude. Stalin’s suspicion grew pathological when the State of Israel was created and this did not activate only the Jewish communities living in the Western countries, but also the organized Jewry in the Soviet Union. The principal focus of this Jewish renascence was the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC), an organization created to raise support for the Soviet Union from western influential Jewry in lobbying other governments against the threat of Hitler.

But, to Stalin’s deception, it soon turned out that the JAC increased extremely the Jewish consciousness and self-confidence within the organized Jewry, and this mood affected also the Jewish communities in the Soviet Union. They expressed more and more openly their feelings of Jewish national solidarity and Jewish pride. They did this to such an extent and so frequently that the original objective of the JAC was totally pushed into the background, namely that of spreading Soviet propaganda in the West, and thus to raise support for Moscow. It is typical that Soviet Jewish poet Perets Markish, for example, publicly talked about “Jewish brothers” around the world, declaring that “we are one people, and now we are becoming one army”. Therefore, Stalin gradually regarded the JAC such an organization, which served the Jewish mission and exemption instead of the interests of the internationalist-communist Soviet Union.

A common Jewish-enforced convention in the West is still that Stalin’s anti-Zionist purge was rooted in baseless anti-Semitism. The hypothesis of “Zionist conspiracy” as a “Fifth Column”, nevertheless, leads to an unsolvable contradiction. The terrible, fiendish cycle starts when those with primary allegiance to the Jewish State invariably create suspicion in others for all Jews in positions of political power. Those Jews innocent of Zionist allegiance, nonetheless, gravitate towards Israel as insurance against anti-Jewish hostility. Hence, the problem – in a self-fulfilling loop – grows like the nature of anti-Semitism itself: Gentile suspicion of, and outrage at, Jewish alienation and intrigue, followed in consequence by further Jewish alienation, followed by further Gentile alienation, and so forth.

The case of General Alexander Orlov is also instructive. He was the most prominent Soviet spy ever to flee Stalinism and to defect to America. Orlov (originally Leiba Lazarevich Feldbin) was also Jewish. In the 1930s Orlov set up a Soviet spy school outside of Barcelona. An American Jew, Morris Cohen, who was instructed here, returned to New York and was placed under the command of another Jewish spy, Semyon Semyonov. When Orlov fled to the United States and received asylum there, he never told American authorities about the existence of Cohen, i.e. he hid away this important fact from his interrogators.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many documents could be studied in the KGB archives. From the Orlov files, such proofs came to light according which Orlov had played a subtle game of wits, first with the FBI and then with CIA interrogators. This enabled the other super-secret Soviet agents he recruited to continue clandestine operations against the West. Orlov’s case was therefore a classic: he was a man squeezed between divided loyalties with little room to maneuver. In such cases always the stronger loyalty prevails.

The Cambridge Fives and the double loyalty

The Cambridge Fives, which is the name of a successful Soviet spy ring, in fact consisted of only four persons, since the identity of the fifth man could not be established for a long time. In Great Britain, the Cambridge Fives transferred a lot of classified military information to the Soviet intelligence during World War II and in the 1950s. The members of this spy ring were highly educated English intellectuals, who belonged, almost without exceptions, to the British elite, and still were communist sympathizers. During World War II, the members of the spy ring transferred Soviet disinformation materials to the German army leadership, and they justified this with the fact that they wanted to support the Soviet Union in the common war waged on Germany. All known members of the group – Kim Philby, Donald Duart Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Burgess and Anthony Blunt – were recruited at Trinity College of Cambridge, through a secret organization operating there, the Cambridge Apostles. Among the Fives, Blunt and Burgess were proved homosexuals, and this was rendered probable also about Maclean. For a long time, it was thought that another “apostle”, John Cairncross was the fifth member of the spy ring, but this was not verified officially.

In 1951, an investigation was on against Burgess and Maclean, but they still were able to flee to the Soviet Union. Soon also the non-Jew Philby fell under suspicion. During the investigation conducted against him, documents founding the suspicion were found, but this was not enough to be incriminated. In 1955, Philby left the British secret service and became a journalist in the Middle East. In 1961, Anatoly Golitsin, a dissident Soviet spy, transferred data to the British intelligence, the MI-5, concerning the activity of Kim Philby. The MI-5 sent one of its leaders to Beirut to interrogate Kim Philby. Philby knew of his arrival, did not flee to avoid him, but deliberately deposed a testimony. And soon after this he left for the Soviet Union, where he worked for the KGB in the rank of general. Prior to his death, he made a statement, telling that the changes occurred within the Soviet system filled him with hope, and he felt that he had not done in vain what he had done. This refers to the fact that he was not a double, but a triple agent.

Nevertheless, soon it was revealed who was the carefully hiding fifth in this spy ring. This fifth had penetrated even the most closed, the most hidden sphere of activity of the British intelligence. He could do it, because he was a first heir to the fabulously wealthy capitalist Rothschild fortune, Nathaniel Meyer Victor Rothschild. An entire volume, entitled The Fifth Man, about his betrayal was published in 1994 by the renowned university professor in Melbourne, Roland Perry. His goal was to discover who the unknown fifth member of the Cambridge Fives was. This spy ring was controlled by Russian master spy Yury Ivanovich Modin. Roland Perry stirred up a hornets’ nest by this, and, in order to cover himself, he published a twenty thousand word justifying writing about the bases of his allegations. This writing titled The Fifth Man Lord Victor Rothschild named the third head of the House of Rothschild having the title of Lord as the fifth member of the British spy ring. The global media reacted to Roland Perry’s book in a quite divided way. Kieran Fagan, journalist of the Irish Times, wrote that “It is not unusual such a book from an Australian journalist… Few of the writers dealing with espionage produced such an exciting writing as Roland Perry.” Another Australian paper, The Sunday Canberra Times wrote: “Perry reveals convincingly who the fifth man was… Rothschild… and even the most critical reader must admit that the proofs referring to the Rothschild are unattackable.”

“Victor Rothschild, as the head of the Rothschild dynasty, held such a place within Great Britain’s ruling elite, which opened all doors in front of him. In the five-member spy ring, he was the only person who had access everywhere and who was above suspicion. As the head of the House of Rothschild, he was perfectly camouflaged. As the person who personified the ruling class of the 20th century Great Britain, nobody considered him a potential traitor. Nevertheless, Rothschild was more loyal to his Jewish heritage than to anything English. The Rothschild dynasty assisted in the creation of a homeland, Israel for the Jews who had been dispossessed in Europe.”

The organized Jewry and the Bolshevik revolution

In the weekly magazine Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), on 8th February 1920, Winston Churchill published a remarkable writing titled Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People. In the first part of his article, Churchill writes with appreciation about the Jews living in Russia, whom he calls “national Jews”. The author exposes that some people like them and some do not. At the same time, no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that “they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.”

“And it may well be that this same astounding race – continues Churchill – may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.”

Churchill adds to this that “The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.”

The great English politician, Winston Churchill was forty-six when he wrote these ideas of his, and differentiated sharply the national Jewry of Russia from the international Jews. He asserted that the world strategy of the international Jewry is in sharp opposition with the behaviour of the national Jewry. The adherents of the strategy of the international Jewry are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.

We know from American intelligence colonel L. Fletcher Prouty that, in World War II, during a destructive night air raid against Rotterdam, Churchill told him, while watching a big map, that “the time and the ocean, a few stars marking the direction, as well as the secret conspirators of the highest rank made us what we are now.”

Prouty was shocked by Churchill’s words, because it was proved that also the great British politician was aware of the fact that secret conspirators existed on the highest level. Namely, who else could have known better than Churchill that there exists a power elite above the states, having its own world strategy, which it can enforce over the whole world?

After this, in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, Churchill related about that, within the Jewry as a world people, existed, for a longer time, Jewish organizations following internationalist (today we would say: cosmopolitan, globalist-Atlantist) trends. The British politician exposed that from the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Béla Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

After this, he referred to British historian Nesta Webster, who has so ably shown that this conspiracy played a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

According to Churchill, there is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. Their participation is certainly a determining one and it probably outweighs all others, since the decisive incentive and control came from the Jewish leaders. The majority of the leading figures of the Bolshevik power were all Jews, with the notable exception of Lenin. (At the time of the writing of this article, Churchill did not know yet that Lenin – Ulyanov – was partly a Jew from his mother’s side: The father of Mariya Blank, Lenin’s mother, Alexander Blank was a Jew converted to orthodox Christianity.)

Moreover, Churchill mentions that the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Chicherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinov. Similarly, the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinoviev, both Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

According to Churchill, the same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Béla Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), when the German society was temporarily paralyzed. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

In the following part of his article, Churchill reviews the excesses committed during the Russian civil war, in the struggle between the whites and the reds. He mentions General Denikin’s measures taken for the defense of the Jewish communities, and listed the reprisals they had to suffer during the civil war. The Bolsheviks, nevertheless, proved that they pay a special attention to the Jewish interests, and thus, for instance, Jewish places of worship were excepted from their universal hostility. This differentiating treatment has contributed to the appearance of the opinion which associated the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies committed by the Bolsheviks.

In the closing part of his above treated article, Churchill deals with the problem of Zionism. In his opinion, Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. The first is when the Jewry forms a national Jewish community as a part of the receiving nation. The second version is when, joining the international communism, as an internationalist people, separates itself from the individual nations. Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann (Chaim Weizmann) in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. Churchill concludes his remarkable article by pointing out that the struggle between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Jacob H. Schiff, one of the creators of the Soviet system

The main representative of the banking house of the Rothschilds in the United States was the super-banker Jacob Schiff. Already in the early 1890s, Schiff exerted pressure on the Washington government to take measures for improving the situation of the Jews living in Russia. For this sake, Schiff negotiated several times with the also Jewish American Secretary of State James E. Blaine. The relationship between the American Jewry and the Czarist Russia (later: Soviet Russia, then Soviet Union) has never been problem-free.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Czarist Russia was considered one of the centres of anti-Semitism, and this urged the American Jews to hinder the trade and credit contacts with the Czarist administration. It was Jacob Schiff who, at the beginning of the 20th century, financed Japan, and persuaded it to attack the Russian fleet. Tokyo was successful in the Japanese-Russian war. The Czarist system fell into a deep crisis, and the mostly Jewish Bolsheviks burst out the 1905 revolution in order to seize the power. They did not manage to achieve this at that time, the Czarist system survived the crisis. The decision-makers of the super-rich Czar’s family decided to deposit the private fortune of the family, amounting to 400 million dollars, in the Chase Bank, the National City Bank, the Guaranty Trust Bank, the Manufacturers Bank and the Hannover Trust Bank. Czar Nicholas II saved out an amount of 80 million dollars of Russia in the Rothschild Bank of Paris. After the execution of the Czar’s family, these huge amounts of money remained in the respective banks, since officially there were no survivals or other legal successors.

We have to remind the fact that, in July 1918, Jacob Schiff gave a direct command, through the American diplomatic channels, to the Bolshevik leadership raised to power in Soviet Russia to execute Czar Nicholas II and all members of his family. This order came directly from New York. When the Bolsheviks had to flee from Yekaterinburg, they did not have time to destroy all telegraph tapes, and these were found later in a telegraph house. Nikolai Sokolov, who was appointed to investigate the case by the White Government led by Alexander Kolchak, took the telegraph tapes with him, and later, when, after the fall of the Kolchak government, he fled to France, the encoded telegraph tapes were decoded in 1922. It turned out that the tapes contained information concerning the assassination of the Czar and his family.

According to the decoded text of the telegrams, Jacob Sverdlov, the president of the Bolshevik central executive committee, sent a message to Jacob Yurovski, who, in turn, forwarded it to New York, to Jacob Schiff. In this message, he reported to Schiff that the White Army was getting close. And then Schiff ordered that the Czar and all his family should be liquidated. This order was forwarded to Sverdlov by the American diplomatic mission stationing, at that time, in Vologda. (More about this: http://www.henrymakow.com/jacob_schiff_ordered_murder_of.html)

After this, Sverdlov ordered Yurovski to execute the disposition. The next day, nevertheless, Yurovski wanted to check whether he had to execute only the Czar or his all family indeed. Sverdlov repeated the order: he had to exterminate the whole family of the Czar. Yurovski was responsible for the execution of the order. Thus, the detailed facts show that not Lenin himself decided in this serious question. Jewish historian Edward Radzinski made an attempt to make Lenin responsible for the execution of the Czar and his family. But no such telegrams or other documents were found in the archives. Radzinski’s explanation that Lenin destroyed these telegrams proved not to be founded. Extremely many documents charging Lenin were found intact, why should he have destroyed only this one?

In 1924, Sokolov told a friend in France that his publisher did not want to print his book due to these sensitive data. The publisher censored the book and removed these data from it. One month after the issue of the book, Sokolov suddenly died. He prepared to travel to the United States in order to hand over his proofs to Henry Ford, who, at that time, was already engaged in a lawsuit with the Kuhn, Loeb and Company Bank due to the publication of his book The International Jew. Sokolov’s book Murder of the Royal Family was issued in Berlin in 1925. In Russia, it was possible to inform about the role of Jacob Schiff in the assassination of the Czar’s family only in 1990.

When did a turn appear in the behaviour of Jacob Schiff?

In 1917, Czar Nicholas II abdicated, and his place was taken by the short-lived temporary government led by Kerensky. Owing to this, a sudden change occurred in the relationship between the American Jewry and Russia. In the autumn of the same year, the Bolshevik regime got to power, and, by this, the relationship became essentially more complicated.

This change is best characterized by the turn occurred in the behaviour of the Kuhn, Loeb and Company. From 1917, up to the 1920s and 1930s, the Kuhn, Loeb and Company and the partners of this bank showed an openly Bolshevik-friendly behaviour. For this, they were criticized and condemned from many parts. In the 1920s, the Anti-Semite critics in the United States and Europe blamed the Jewish bankers for being too Bolshevik-friendly. During the World War I, the accusations of German-friendliness and the infidelity toward the Grand Entente were added to this. These accusations were supported by that widely spread view according which the Bolsheviks were in fact the puppets of the Germans, and their real goal was to fight out the victory of Germany by disconnecting Russia and the eastern front from the war. In this way, Germany could regroup all its forces to the western front.

It also became widely known that it was the main head of the Kuhn, Loeb and Company, Jacob Schiff, who secretly financed the Bolshevik revolution. This circumstance strengthened the opinion that this bank house of great influence was German-friendly. Furthermore, the anxiety was increased also by the other widespread opinion according which most of the Russian Bolshevik leaders were Jews or of Jewish origin. Such an unquestionably capitalist institution as the Kuhn, Loeb and Company could hardly be considered the centre of the leftist revolutionary endeavours, but it still proved to be so. The British and French decision-makers, the American conservatives, the Russian emigrant organizations, and even such anti-Semites as Henry Wickham Steel, editor-in-chief of the British Daily Mail, only supported this opinion, when they proved that Jacob Schiff and his partner, Felix Warburg, as well as other Jewish banks gave huge amounts of money to the Bolsheviks, in exchange for Russian economic and financial concessions.

In November 1936, the weekly magazine American Jewish World wrote, referring to Italian and German sources, that Felix Warburg and the Kuhn, Loeb and Company financed Trotsky, Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution. In his book The Warburgs, written upon the order of the Warburg family, Ron Chernow writes on page 181: “The fall of the Czar at the beginning of 1917 removed all remaining reserves of Jacob Schiff concerning the support of the allied Grand Entente. Foreseeing the end of the anti-Semitism sponsored by the state, he welcomed the Bolshevik-Menshevik revolution, as a kind of miracle, which he formulated in this way: ‘it is almost a greater miracle than the breaking out of our ancestors from the Egyptian captivity’. Schiff immediately transferred one million dollars to the government of Alexander Kerensky.”

Later on, Jacob Schiff was blamed for the fact that he and the Warburgs helped the Bolshevik revolution to get to power. It is a proven fact that Trotsky was active on the appointment of Jacob Schiff, and even the son of Schiff assured that his father gave twenty million dollars to Trotsky through the Kuhn, Loeb and Company bank. (At a current rate, this amount is equivalent to two billion dollars.) Lenin was financed primarily by Max Warburg, the head of the House of Warburgs in Germany. It was him, who, as the leader of the secret service of the imperial Germany, smuggled Lenin and his fellow revolutionaries in a closed train through Germany, to Helsinki. But also Max Warburg gave twenty million golden marks to Lenin.

The financing of the Bolsheviks was also assisted by the Rockefellers, the partners of the J.P. Morgan, Olaf Ashberg, the owner of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, as well as William Thompson, the leader of the Chase National Bank. The Rockefellers started to support the Bolsheviks after the Czar rejected their request concerning the exploitation of the Russian oil fields. The cause of this was that the Royal Dutch owned by the Rothschilds and the Nobel Brothers received this concession. Thus, the Rockefellers financed the Bolsheviks so that the Standard Oil could set feet solidly in Russia.

We cited these few data just in order to reinforce the fact that Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks could not have brought Russia and its peoples under their power without the support of the super-rich Jewish banker dynasties. To this extent, the super-rich Jewish banker dynasties can partly be made responsible – as accomplices – for the historic crimes committed by the Bolshevism.

Which is the power to which the organized Jewry is loyal in the 21st century?

An American university professor, James Petras introduced, in his writings, the term “Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC)” for that comprehensive umbrella organization, which controls and finances the transnationally organized world people, the Jewry living in Israel and the diaspora, and to which the Jewish organizations are loyal. When Petras started to research the organizational structure and operation of this power structure, he used many sources. He took over many facts and data from Zionist and Israeli sources, as well as from publications recognized by the mainstream official scientific standard. Of course, he also used the works of authors and analysts who were critical against the mainstream. Petras emphasized especially that he did not prefer the Jewish authors only because they are Jews. He did not agree with the assertion that the works of Jewish authors might be more authentic in the Jewish question than the works of other authors. According to him, the revealing of the truth should not be done on ethnical basis. Namely, there are such analyses and works, which are much better documented and argue better than those which rely exclusively on Jewish sources.

In case of positive statements, the Zionist opinion-formers allow the ethnic reference, and you can call Jew a Jew. On the other hand, in case of negative statements, for instance, financial frauds, the ethnic origin of the Russian oligarchs, or the high-ranked agents spying against America, it is not due to mention their Jewish origin.

(For the analysis of the situation of the organized Jewry living in America and of the transnational Zionist structure, we rely on the study The Jewish-Zionist Power in the World’s Economy, Media, Military, Politics published by James Petras in October 2012.)

The 51 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organization (PMAJO) claim to speak for all Jews in the United States. A major study in the north Boston region found that less than 25% of Jews belong to a synagogue, fewer (10%) contribute to the Jewish Federation and over 50% do not accept rabbinical Zionist precepts against inter-marriage with non-Jews. The number of conservative synagogues has declined by almost 25% from 800 to 650 over the past decade. Even most striking is the fact that many prominent individuals who are of Jewish parentage, no longer consider themselves “Jews” and do not identify with Judaism and are critical or indifferent to Zionist appeals for Israel. Lesser and lesser have involvement in Jewish centered civic activities. A small, but vocal, group of Jews are organized and active critics of the entire Zionist apparatus. They are rejecting the idea of Israel as an exclusive ethno-religious state. They are supporting, instead, a secular democratic republic, the citizens of which are equal, irrespective of the ethnic group they belong to. In addition, there are still several Orthodox Jewish sects, which are fundamentalists and reject the Zionist State of Israel on the basis of the Jewish religious traditions.

The “51” claim to speak for 6 million American Jews. Nevertheless, at best they may speak for less than half of the imputed population, since the “51” do not represent the Jewish community at large, only some of their local organizations. These organizations have a very different structure, bound to the Jewish traditions and following of the religious rules. Their political influence resides in their singular forces in pursuit of the interests of the State of Israel and the control and influence in media. And, on a nationwide scale, they are supported by the Jewish money oligarchy and its institutions. With such a support backing them, they use the available force, money and mass media to intimidate any and all critics, including dissident politicians, media, journalists and professors. The fact is that at most there are probably no more than 500,000 Jews who actively back the “51”, and, since relatively few follow the one-sided pro-Israel mass media propaganda, which misinforms the public, the Zionist zealots have relatively little competition. It is a fact that they have a free hand in penetrating and influencing political, social and cultural institutions in line with the policies dictated by their Israeli influenced leaders among the “51”.

They include religious, civic, charitable, ideological, cultural and social organizations. According to Petras, they are unconditionally committed to following the zigzags of Israeli political directives. The actual structure of this Israeli lobby resembles a ‘power configuration’ that reaches from small chapters in municipalities to statewide confederations. These national organizations have their own budgets, their own ideological watchdogs and their appropriate levels of power. It is of decisive importance that the power for Israel should be exercised by elected and appointed Zionist officials, especially those in positions that have any relevance to Israeli interests. These “interests” include direct aid to Israel, sanctions and wars against Israel’s Middle East and Asian adversaries, It is important that the American pension fund should continue its large investments in Israel, and the American companies should boycott the companies trading with Israeli-designated adversary countries.

From the point of the Zionist Power Configuration, the key role is played by organizations being on the lowest level, which were bolstered by the financial support by scores of millionaires and dozens of billionaires and a complicit mass media. This kind of political support and degree of organization increases the influence of the Jewish electors to a considerable extent. This influence is essentially greater than it would be on the basis of the number of the Jewish electors. This illustrates clearly how “numbers” in the abstract do not count, especially in a permeable electoral system like the US, where money, organization, discipline and ethno-religious fanaticism define the boundaries, issues and acceptable policies.

The ZPC as the interest enforcer of Israel in Washington

In 2012, the US Congress decided to repudiate (HR 867) the findings of Israeli war crimes in the official Final Report of the United Nations’ Fact Finding Mission on the 2009 Gaza Conflict. The report, also known as the “Goldstone Report”, after its principle author Justice Richard Goldstone, a famous South African jurist of Jewish origin, was released on September 15, 2009, and contained serious findings about Israel. The international public opinion highly evaluated this well-funded document, due to its factual accurateness and professional objectivity. Well, the US Congress condemned this report, which condemnation, on the request of Israel, was forwarded by the Presidents of the ‘51’ to the Capitol. And the congressmen obediently and enthusiastically carried out this request. The ‘51’ were openly defending the Israeli state terror and crimes against humanity, committed against the inhabitants of Gaza, the world’s largest open-air concentration camp. We mention that from the Gaza side altogether 13 Israelis were killed, while Israel killed more than 1500 people of Gaza, among them also children and women. It is remarkable that the ZPC had enough ability to enforce – through pressure, threaten, cajole and promise of future funds – this decision from the Congressional representatives. Blind obedience to Israeli dictates, also reminding of the Soviet era, was evident in the fact that many Congresspersons proudly confessed to never having even read the Goldstone Report and that none dared question the egregious fabrications. (The writer of the present lines was tried to be persuaded in the 1970s, in Hungary, beside others, to condemn Solzhenitsyn’s work, The Gulag Archipelago, which, of course, was not published in Hungarian, and it was not available in English either. When he referred to the fact that he would not be able to judge and condemn a book until he had not read it, he was unambiguously told that, at the request of the political power, he should condemn the work without reading it. Nevertheless, they did not manage to reach it.)

In the UN National Assembly, the Zionists were first able to leverage the US to vote against the Goldstone Report, among others, with the help of several Eastern European client states, under Western influence. This amounted to a total of 18 votes against the 114 UN members who endorsed the Report’s thorough documentation of Israeli war crimes and state terrorism, an endorsement which represented over 80% of the world’s population.

We could see that the ZPC is powerful but not omnipotent. It controls both houses of the US Congress, as well as the upper levels of the Executive and administration. It has decisive influence in the mass media, but there are important fissures in the monolith. It is a fact that a number of Jewish organizations and individuals, revolted by Israel’s mass killings in Gaza, refused the unconditional support of the ZPC. At the same time, they have spoken out in support of the Goldstone Report.

Furthermore, major national trade union federations in Canada, Ireland, Great Britain, France and Italy, along with numerous human rights organizations, supported the Goldstone Report and called for a global boycott and disinvestment campaign against Israeli products. It is a new phenomenon that judicial processes are proceeding in various European countries to arrest and put on trial top Israeli officials involved in the Gaza massacre. Nevertheless, the United States, under the tutelage of the ZPC, remains as the center of Israeli power and the sole reliable backer of Israeli war aims in the Middle East.

Professor Petras sees that the manifestations of Israeli power over the US are not only public and visible, but also outrageous and unprecedented in the annals of US foreign relations. Israeli power is wielded directly through its subordinated political arm, the ZPC. The ZPC is which in turn facilitates the direct intervention of the Israeli state in the internal politics of the US. Professor Petras supported this statement with several concrete examples. On November 9, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the mass based Jewish Federation (JF) of North America General Assembly and thanked US President Obama and the US Congress for repudiating the Goldstone Report. The Israeli head of state then told his US followers to increase their efforts to influence US policy to “stop Teheran from realizing its nuclear ambitions”.

The previous day, on the same forum, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren himself, pressed for sanctions on Iran and condemned the findings of the United Nations commission on Gaza. Speaking as a tribal chieftain dictating orders to the loyal overseas followers, Oren stated, “Our strength derives from the belief that we have a right to independence in our tribal land, the land of Israel…” Israel is the only country that can intervene in the internal politics of the US. Counting on such powerful political organizations, which are able to achieve this. The ZPC builds on the now discredited myth that American Jews’ tribal ancestry is rooted in Israel, rather than Central Asia, the Khazar Empire. It also tries to reinforce the idea that Israel and not the United States is the true ‘homeland’ of American Jews. And therefore it is not only their right, but also their duty to obey the dictates of the Israeli state, and to exert their influence according to the interests of the State of Israel. Each year dozens of Israeli state officials visit the US and directly intervene in US political debates. They take part in congressional hearings and executive policy making – with not a whisper of protest. The US State Department has never objected to this kind of practice. Any other country’s officials who so flagrantly intervene in US politics would be declared persona non grata and expelled from the country. In contrast, because of the power of the ZPC, Israeli civilians and military officials are regularly invited to intervene in US policy making. In this way, they are able to set the agenda, in practice, for numerous Zionist officials both in formal and informal bodies. Their influence also comprises to bludgeon those who criticize or oppose Israeli dictates.

To whom are the Jews living in America loyal primarily?

We can witness repeated public statements by Israeli officials that the primary loyalty of American Jews is to Israel and its policies. Therefore, Professor Petras calls the Jewish organizations of great influence the fifth column for Israel in the US. The primary loyalty to Israel is incompatible with the original notion of citizenship everywhere in the world. One could imagine the outcry (and brutal reprisals) from the part of the organized Jewry if any political leader from a Moslem country called on their American co-religionists to pursue its state interests. Based on its organizational structure and political aims, the pro-Israel social-political configuration cannot be reduced to a common “lobby”. The Zionist Power Structure is much more than this: its organizational structure encompasses and penetrates civic, political, cultural institutions and media outlets. This power network is a state within the state and it plays a major role in shaping the public opinion. Unlike the ordinary American lobbies, the ZPC is able to shape US foreign policy in the interest of a foreign and remote military power, Israel, up to and including decisions on promoting war and imposing sanctions against Israel’s opponents. This prejudices the lives and security of thousands of American working people and taxpayers.

Besides this, the term “lobby” does not ordinarily encompass the virulent repressive activities pursued by the ZPC against critical writers, cultural figures, academics and others in American society who question Israeli policy. The ZPC has been openly doing so over fifty years. In the 1960’s the Justice Department attempted to enforce the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) against the current American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)’s predecessor, the American Zionist Council (AZC). This effort of the Justice Department, nevertheless, was blocked by pro-Israel politicians.

The ZPC not only publically gives unconditional support to Israeli policy but engages in espionage on behalf of Israel as we have already presented in detail. One of America’s leading experts on Israel’s “lobby”, Grant Smith, has amassed an extremely big amount of documents on Israeli-Zionist activities in the US. This vast archive of declassified official US documents presents numerous cases in which AIPAC purloined internal classified government documents in order to further Israeli trade privileges.

A leader of the already mentioned Zionist Organization of America was implicated in the illegal transfer of US government uranium to Israel in 1956. In 2005 Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, leaders in AIPAC, admitted to receiving a confidential document relating to US-Iran policy, transmitting it to an Israeli embassy official. From 1979 to 1985, senior US Army Weapons Engineer Ben-ami Kadish, an American Zionist and former member of the fanatical Jewish Haganah militia in British Mandate Palestine, handed critical confidential documents on an enormous number of US weapons systems over to agents from the Israeli embassy. These were then passed to the Soviet Union in order to influence their policy on immigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. It is also worth mentioning that Kadish got off with a $50,000 fine and not a single day in jail – for handing scores of crucial US military secrets to Israel.

In 2001 Fox News investigative reporter, Carl Cameron, reported that scores of Israeli spies were rounded up and arrested in the aftermath of 9/11, including five Mossad agents videoing the World Trade Center bombing. Nevertheless, they were set free and let back to Israel, without any criminal procedure. Industrial and political spying is not uncommon among states, even between allies. What is striking is that representatives of the major American Zionist organizations have consistently expressed sympathy and solidarity with such spies as Ben-ami Kadish, Jonathan Pollard and others, even defending their acts of espionage as a significant contribution to US – Israeli relations. This shows clearly that spying for Israel is the expression of the primary loyalty to the Jewish state. Nevertheless, this Zionist primary loyalty to Israel is not confined to mainline American Jewish organizations. During the Rosen-Weissman trial, numerous prominent Jewish leftist (including Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, editor of the popular radio and TV programme Democracy Now) publicly defended the procuring of confidential documents and their handing over to a foreign (Israeli) government as a matter of “free speech” and “freedom of the press”.

Top Zionist leaders in the Bush and Obama administration have cooperated closely. Two top Pentagon officials in the Bush administration, Former Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Assistant Secretary of Defense, Douglas Feith are cases in point. During Obama’s first presidency, his chief of staff was Rahm Emmanuel, who spent a long time in Israel and served in the Israeli armed forces. Rahm Emmanuel has long been suspected of ties to Mossad. Stuart Levey, a top US Treasury Department official, was involved in enforcing sanctions against Iran. It is known about him – since he regularly brags about it – that he has spent nearly a decade in close collaboration with Mossad.

During the Bush (Jr.) presidency, non-Zionist officials in the Pentagon and CIA complained of being sidelined by top Zionist officials. They were controlled by such Zionist decision-makers, like the already mentioned Wolfowitz and Feith, who set up their own intelligence office, the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. It was run by Abram Shulsky. Another official in the Pentagon at the time, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski complained of being marginalized and supplanted by Israeli officers who had unfettered access to the highest Pentagon officials.

The November 2007, that United States National Intelligence Estimate Report (NIE) was completed, which objectively surveyed the Iranian nuclear program. The report was attacked savagely by all the major Jewish American organizations, and their cohorts in Congress and the Executive branch because the report concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons development since 2003. Instead of this conclusion, they favored Israeli intelligence disinformation claiming that Iran continued its active nuclear weapons program that threatened US security. The NIE report was prepared by 16 major US Government intelligence agencies with thorough circumspection. In spite of this, it was pushed aside and US policy did not lean on their own experts, but followed the lead of the Zionist-backed Israeli claims of a “secret” Iranian weapons program, despite the absence of any hard data. As a summary, it can be stated that the combined influence of Zionists was exerted in executive offices (Treasury, State, National Security, Pentagon, etc.) and Congress, especially leading committees relevant to Israeli interests, and as well as the mass organizations in civil society (the ‘51’ major American Jewish organizations), which form a state within the state. This hierarchy is completed by the Zionist control over the mass media.

Therefore, the Zionist Power Configurations can automatically and unquestioningly support the crimes and treason, including Zionist espionage for Israel within the US and the universally-condemned Israel war crimes. The mass media, the Congress, and even the so-called ‘leftist’ intellectuals are under the hegemony of the ZPC. In the past, organizations acting as surrogates for a foreign power were condemned, ostracized, suppressed, prosecuted and subject to mass public outrage. Nevertheless, the ZPC does not have to face any of these in our days. Since Professor Petras (on whose comprehensive study we leant and summarized its content briefly) is a deeply committed leftist social scientist, it is understandable that he condemned the fact that practically all Marxist journals, monthlies, bi-monthlies, quarterlies and annuals and their leading contributors have avoided a serious critique of the ZPC. Even the “internationalist” and “Marxist” editors and authors are not willing to confront the ZPC war makers who promote wars in the Middle East, funded by American taxpayers and fought by 99.9% non-Jewish/non-Zionist working class Americans in uniform.

Control centre for the creation of the Zionist hegemony

Some of the best critical analysts have identified AIPAC as the most influential pro-Israel lobby. On the other hand, others have noted the pro-Israel bias of the mass media, and regard the editors, programme editors and decision-makers working there to be the strongest lobby. The writer of the present lines would like to call the attention on the fact that the mass media institutions, even on global scale, is owned by the money rule global elite that consists of 300 super-rich money dynasties, and this determines the exertion of the opinion rule on global scale by the global media.

During the Bush presidency, the influence of key Zionists was determining first of all in the Pentagon, especially in promoting the US invasion of Iraq. The different case studies show the negative Zionist influence over the American specific policy issues. From this point of view, we have mentioned the Goldstone Report, and its Congressional repudiation. This shows that the support of the Israeli policy is dominating in the American political life, and even the Israeli war crimes did not change this. In connection with this, Professor Petras emphasized that the problem of ZPC power in the US is not confined to a single issue lobby. This narrow approach obfuscates the systemic role of the ZPC in effectively disenfranchising the great majority of the American wage and salaried people (at the expense of their living standards), increasing war taxes for the middle class. This policy is detrimental also for the American WASP big investors, because it blocks investment opportunities in several countries designated (by Israel) as “security threats”.

What characterizes the way of life of the leading Zionists?

Many of them come from the giant bank of the Wall Street and the corporate law firms, and usually get important state administration functions. Another career pattern involves Zionist academics who move to the executive branch and then, after the change of administration, they move on to the big corporations or to the also Zionist think tanks, and to the altogether thirty thousand foundations, owned also by the money power global elite.

Another type of career pattern is when the academic scientific activity is combined with the activity of newspaper writers, editors and propagandists, as well as with the fulfilment of different counselling positions. One of the variants of this is when the same persons become media stars as experts of the show programmes of the big televisions and radios. The leading media moguls combine roles as CEO’s – propagandists – and Israel advocates. The overlap of career positions creates a network of shared ideologies, defined by ‘what is best for Israel’. They are the “Israel Firsters”. The shared “world view” creates a cohesive group that sets the boundaries of US policy debate. Congressional behavior, Executive policy makers and intellectual discourse are confined by these ZPC-determined parameters. In effect pro-Israel career patterns and projections of power have established a kind of Judeo-Zionist hegemony of US public life.

Ethnically determined truth

One of the extreme manifestations of Zionist-Jewish hegemony is found in the fear and trepidation with which critics of Israeli policy approach the issue. Most seek to “Judaize” any criticism, instead of seeking and citing truth, facts or analyses on their own merits. They support their statements by citing Israeli sources and Jewish writers, even if earlier non-Jewish, non-Israeli writers and analysts have raised the same issues and may have provided a more systematic and consequential critique.

This “tactic” of seeking to play off critical Jewish social scientists and authors against the ZPC and Israel is rather debatable if not counter-productive, regressive and serves to re-enforce the pervasive fear of the ZPC. The proponents of this approach, assuming they are not ignorant of non-Jewish critics, argue that by citing the Jewish background of the critics of Israel, they disarm the ZPC charge of “anti-Semitism”. These authors ethnicize their critique responding to “Jewish sensibilities” and are more likely to get a hearing from Jews and their sympathizers. These arguments are plausible but deeply flawed. Committed Zionists, meaning the entire ZPC, dismiss Jewish and non-Jewish critics with equal ferocity: the former as “self-hating Jews”, the latter as “anti-Semites”. Sacrificing truth and principled criticism to shield “Jewish sensibilities” means refraining from challenging their residual tribal sympathies to a ‘Zion-centric’ view of the world.

If the central problem is Zionist hegemony of US culture and especially foreign policy in the Middle East (and wherever else Israel dictates), it ill behooves us to pander to amorphous ‘special sensitivities’ of the few Jewish dissidents who demand ethnically-based critiques.

It is necessary to deprive the racial doctrine of mysticism. The big challenge for opponents of Judeo-Zionist hegemony is demystifying its ideological bases, removing the spiritual fog surrounding it. Zionists and their media camp followers always highlight “Jewishness” and the disproportionate number of notable, successful scientists and public figures with whom the Zionists self-identify. Even if the said individuals have no identification with anything remotely “Jewish” beyond some distant ancestry. In contrast, the essence “Jewishness”, Jewish existence and Israel-centricity immediately fades away or is not mentioned at all in case of notorious swindlers, spies, warmongers, gangsters, drug or arms traffickers. If somebody refers to Jewish origin in case of such people, he is immediately labeled anti-Semitic.

(The writer of the present lines must mention the fact that there are, however, exceptions to this. In the Jewish community house “Bálint Ház” in Budapest, at the beginning of the 2000s, could be one of the spectators of an exhibition presenting world-known gangsters of Jewish origin. This means that there is still such an information supply, which refers to the Jewish origin not only in connection with unambiguously positive Jewish personalities.)

One of the key components of Zionist-Jewish ideology and Israeli power is precisely the racist myth of the Jewish moral and intellectual superiority. This means that not the guns, money and backing of Washington and the ZPC’s central location within the US elite social structure are determining. There are two options for those interested in demystifying Zionist-Jewish hegemony. One could eliminate all ethnic labels or one could insist that labels be applied to all individuals including the most nefarious, grotesque and embarrassing. Cracks already appeared in the Zionist monolith and public critics emerged within and without the Jewish community, especially among young former Jews, who prefer to assimilate with their fellow American citizens. They want to be simply American only.

This is an important development even if still up to a third of US Jews remain hard-core backers of the ZPC with Israel as their most enduring political loyalty. We should not discount the socio-psychological causes of the loyalty to ZPC and Israel, which accompany beliefs in a mythical biblical past. Nevertheless, we have to point out that there are real material benefits to joining the Israel First Power Configuration. There are powerful material incentives, especially the benefits accruing from exclusive identification and membership in a cohesive configuration. It empowers its members, finances electoral campaigns and is well-connected among political leaders, as well as financial, real estate and insurance moguls.


The rule of the Zionist Power Configuration and of cultural Marxism in America

The success of the ZPC in projecting power and shaping US policy depends, in large part, on the size of the financial support of its millionaire Jewish financiers, forming an organic part of the power structure. The leaders of the big banks and corporations play a determining role in the hierarchy of the money rule elite, maintaining close relations with the top leaders of state organizations. The career of the Zionist activists depends to a high extent of their relationship with the higher level of the hierarchy. Those ambitious politicians who measure the situation well and are on the right side of the fence can usually count on a considerable financial aid and a wide media promotion. The networks working for Israel increase the Jewish-Zionist prestige, so that, in the meantime, they offer also an emotional satisfaction to the participants. When Israel reaches victories and expands successfully, they are filled with the feeling of racial conscience and pride.

Developing contacts plays an important role even at the beginning of a career, and the local and national Zionist meetings offer a good opportunity for this. This is advantageous especially when the otherwise mediocre candidate has to face serious competitors, either on political or on scientific field. In such cases, the belonging to the giant Zionist organization means a great advantage, which can offer an existential protection to not only the mediocre, but also to the underperforming persons. In case of some academic positions, for instance, it is enough only to mention that they would suit the university with the charge of anti-Semitism, if the university does not renew the contract of a teacher of Jewish origin.

The Zionist ideology, based upon racial grounds, builds on the assertion that the Jews are a special people, chosen by the tribal God of the Torah, encourages the Jews, who, otherwise, belong only to the lower middle class. The ethnic-religious superiority inspired by the media further strengthens the Jewish identity and solidarity, urging them to eagerly sell Israeli state bonds, to write, in mass, letters to politicians, and to persecute efficiently those who criticize the Jewish state, while they wave the Israeli flag. It is also them who are the active participants of the self-activity coming from below, who can mobilize very successfully their relatives, neighbours and colleagues.

The effective exercise of power by the Zionist elites is based on the vertical ties between the leaders and followers. The hierarchic organization assures the efficiency of this control from upside down. This helps especially in mobilizing for Israel’s high priority goals. For instance, supporting Israel against the American policy repudiating Jewish colonial settler expansion or calling for more restraint from killing civilians in Palestine and elsewhere.

Zionist hegemony is such a reality, which, nevertheless, is vulnerable in several respects. Several developments encourage the hope that these vertical links can be weakened. Since 2007, numerous articles, books and videos critical of Israel managed to break through the strong Zionist censorship. Another new result is the emergence of new activist Jewish anti-Zionist organizations and the vast increase in member organizations supporting a boycott and divestment campaign against Israeli products, companies and cultural institutions have broken the ZPC stranglehold on public opinion. Faced with growing opposition in civil society, the ZPC has escalated its repressive efforts to ban publication of critical authors, fire academics and savage journalists and politicians.

Simultaneously a concerted effort has been made to encourage its ideological ‘attack dogs’ in universities and scientific institutions to suppress any critical discussion of the issues that most discredit the Israeli state. It is necessary to divert the attention from the fact that Israel committed twice massacres in Gaza, and, neglecting the international law, performs a brutal expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The ZPC increasingly controls the global media owned by the money rule world elite, and strangleholds the major media outlets for opinion and analysis especially on the Middle East. Israel’s foreign office has especially asked this from the AIPAC. As a result, Israel Firsters monopolized the editorial and opinion pages of the Washington Post, the Murdoch chain, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, ­Newsweek, and other print outlets.

As a result, self-styled “experts” of dubious loyalty to the America, but with strong ties to Israel and Zionist propaganda institutes, grind out opinion pieces which defend the Israeli regime’s most atrocious war crimes and land grabs. Owing to this, numerous professors from the most prestigious universities defend Israel’s assault on Gaza, fabricating judicial precedents, and citing “Just War” theory. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, when confronted by near universal support for the Goldstone Report, ordered the ZPC to denigrate Justice Goldstone, the basis and legality of the Report and falsify its contents.

In the latest decade, no Israeli crime was too great to cause any Harvard, Yale, Princeton or John Hopkins Zionist academic to rethink their blind subordination to the Jewish state. They parroted Netanyahu’s ridiculous assertion that the bombing and massacre of over one thousand civilians and the brutalization of hundreds of thousands in Gaza (where the population was neither able to flee, nor to defend itself) was an exercise of “Israel’s right to self-defense”.

Only very few of the Jewish and non-Jewish academics dared to criticize Israel’s terrorist policy.  Few if any raised their voices against the domestic propaganda activity of the Presidents of the 51 Major Jewish American Organizations. “What is striking about the vast majority of Zionist academic apologists of terrorism is their shoddy scholarship”, established Professor Petras in his study The Jewish-Zionist Power in the World’s Economy, Media, Military, Politics (October 2, 2012), the main statements of which we are leaning.

The researchers and academics committed to the AIPAC have tendentious and illogical arguments and de-contextualized analogies. Their ‘persuasiveness’ is based on the fact that their ‘line’ is reinforced and repeated over and over by the mass media and enforced by the ZPC’s political thuggery and character assassination of potential critics. Their repeated presence in the media gives the appearance of legitimacy in defending violations of international law. Since they fulfil positions at prestigious universities, they provide a veneer of expertise or knowledge even as their research in the region is based on flawed premises, including disproven religious legends and colonial mythology. Thus, the Zionist academics became ideologists of Zionist expansionism. As a result, intellectual standards were extremely deteriorated. Over time prestigious positions become linked with mediocrity. Academic degrees, awards and badges of merit are harnessed to hack writing, i.e. writing distortions, half-truths, and even expressed untruths, in order to denigrate the character of their competitor.

Such noted critics, who exempt Israeli war crimes and terror, are still published by prestigious publishers, despite their shabby intellectual output. Promotions and academic chairs are secured by eminently distinguished apologists of dubious morality. Their blind support and defense of the practices of a terror state puts the lie to their claims to high ethical and scholarly standards.

Globalization of the Zionist power

By 2013, the pro-Israel influence of the ZPC has already spread to important political institutions in England, Canada, France, Netherlands, Russia and more recently South America.

In England, leaders and deputies from both the Conservative and Labour party accept millions in campaign funds from billionaire Zionists, paid luxury journeys to Israel and other payoffs. In exchange, they support Israel’s most egregious acts of violence in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. Zionist front groups like the “Conservative Friends of Israel” and “Labor Friends of Israel” ensure that the incumbent regimes and the opposition put Israeli trade and militarist interests at the center of British Middle East Policy.

In Canada, under the Conservative Harper regime, Zionists have secured unprecedented influence and diplomatic and material support for Israel’s top priorities. These include support for the annexation of most of Palestinian East Jerusalem; repudiation of the Goldstone Report; support for Israeli war crimes during the 2008/09 invasion of Gaza; Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.

Legislations criminalizing criticism of Zionism as “anti-Semitism” are pending. The opposition Liberal and New Democratic parties compete with the Conservatives in pandering to the pro-Israel power configurations. In this way, they try to secure campaign financing from millionaire real estate, financial and media moguls. In contrast, major Canadian trade unions and anti-Zionist Jewish campus and community organizations (because there still exist such entities) have organized boycotts of Israeli goods and academic organizations serving the new-colonizing Israeli occupation.

In France, first of all Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who turned out to be a life-long Zionist zealot, has embraced Netanyahu’s extreme position of “unconditional negotiations” which allows massive land seizures and the construction of ‘Jews-only’ apartment complexes on illegally confiscated Palestinian land to continue. The endless inconsequential “peace” negotiations have a single goal: to gain time for the gradual occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories.

In Russia, eight of the top nine billionaire oligarchs have claimed dual Israeli citizenship. They illegally and violently seized hundreds of billions of dollars worth of formerly state-owned mines, factories and banks. And then they liquidated part of their illicit fortunes and transferred the money to overseas banks in Israel, the US, London and the money-laundering offshore island states and tax-havens.

Zionist power was the greatest during the debauched presidency of Yeltsin, who proved to be a bribable henchman. The power of the networks peaked in the 1990’s. But the residual influence of the Jewish oligarchs with dual loyalty continued – even if on a lower level – in the Putin-Medvedev regime. This is particularly apparent in the US-Russian accords to increase sanctions on Iran. This accord jeopardizes billions of dollars in Russian investments and the trade of Russia with Iran. Russia has resolutely refused to pressure Israel over its colonial settlement expansion o the territories which, according to international law, are under the authority of the Palestinian Authority. In a similar manner, Israel retains a decisive influence over Holland and Germany’s Middle East policy, via the exploitation of the Holocaust Memory, the Ann Frank legacy and the pressure of pro-Israel economic sectors.

The newest example of the “globalization” of Zionist power and the drive for new Israeli spheres of influence is found in Latin America. Major US Zionist organizations have contributed substantial financial resources to building, advising and orienting their counterparts, especially in Argentina, Brazil and Peru. They urged them to curry favor with the US by demonizing President Chavez for his forthright defense of Palestinian rights and condemnation of Israel’s crimes against humanity during its bombing of Gaza.

For these acts of courage the 51 US Jewish organizations branded Chavez – who died on 6th March 2013 – an “anti-Semitic”, even going so far as to accuse him of fomenting an assault on a Jewish community center in Caracas. When the arsonists were arrested, the assault was revealed to have been carried out by center employees hired by the local Jewish notables.

Global Zionism has also targeted Argentina. Argentinean Jews have a history of ambiguous feelings toward the state of Israel and Zionism. Early twentieth century Jews established farming and cattle ranches, and they had a determining role also as urban artisans and working class Jews. They were active in socialist, anarchist, communist and left wing Yiddish organizations. In the middle of the century, many of them became free professionals, businesspeople, academics and, of course, bankers. They were divided between leftist anti-Zionists and Zionists.

Both Jewish trends suffered attacks from the pro-fascist sectors of the dominant mass-based populist Peronist regime. Under the military dictatorships of 1960’s and 1970’s, the leftist Jewry supported the urban guerrillas and radical mass movements. The Israeli government retained relations with the bloodiest of the military regimes (Videla, 1976), and traded with it in arms and military technologies. The generation of young non-Zionist Argentine revolutionaries of Jewish ancestry was decimated during the years of dictatorship. Under the subsequent post-dictatorial neo-liberal electoral regimes, their place was taken over by new groups of wealthy Argentine Zionist Jews. They grew to dominate local community organizations. They deepened ties with Israel and established extensive links with the US ZPC. The decline of leftwing activity during the1980’s and 1990’s was accompanied by the de-radicalization of secular Jewish offspring, especially in the professional classes. With de-industrialization, Jews, who had formed the backbone of the previous progressive national bourgeoisie, turned to emigration, finance, real estate and Zionism.

The severe depression and financial crash of 2001–2002 hitting Argentina led to the mass impoverishment of the population, including otherwise prosperous middle class Jews. The subsequent economic recovery and commodity boom between 2003–2008 led to a sharp de-radicalization and the ascendance of Jewish Zionist bankers, real estate and media moguls as principle leaders in the Argentine community. From the US side, the ZPC – especially the ADL and AIPAC fabricated an Islamic Iranian terrorist conspiracy in Latin America, the centre of which was allegedly in the region of the Argentine–Brazilian–Paraguayan frontier.

In October 2009, Zionist Congressman Elliot Engle opened hearings focusing on “Iran’s expanding influence in Latin America”, calling new trade ties between Iran and Brazil “a threat to the region and the security of the US”.

The enormous growth of Israeli power in Europe and the US, and the new Zionist offensive in Latin America are all part of the “globalization” of Zionism. Nevertheless, it is extremely hard to make the Zionist organizations operating in different countries accept the repeated horrendous massacres by Israeli military forces, the blatant dispossession of Palestinians and the aggressive militarism pushed by the ZPC and Israel in the Middle East and South Asia. As a result, public hostility against the expansion of the ZPC is growing world-wide. This is most visibly evidenced by the United Nations General Assembly vote on the Goldstone Report, which was endorsed by an almost ten to one margin. There are equally important and ever widening cracks in the Zionist monolith among North American Jews and former Zionist fellow travelers.

The Jewish Zionist hegemony in the cultural and political life of America

In the beginning the ZPC imposed their view that Israeli conquest and wars against the native people of Palestine and its Muslim neighbors was a war of “national liberation” or “independence”. This goal culminated with Jewish-Zionist success in convincing President Johnson to cover up Israel’s bombing of the USS Liberty, performing electronic observation, during the Seven Day War (June 5-11, 1967). The warplanes of the Israeli Air Force attacked the spying American ship so that Egypt could have been made responsible for its sinking, and, in this way, they could have make the United States enter the war. In this case, not Israelis should have die for the sake of the Israeli expansion, but Americans.

In the decade from 1970-90, Zionist-Jewish hegemony in America extended from its traditional bastion in the film, TV and radio mass media. The former left-of-center part of the printed and electronic mass media got under the control of the intellectual control of the ZPC. The formerly liberal New Republic already started virulent attacks on any critics of Israel. The Commentary, also a formerly a liberal cultural journal, became a mouthpiece for neo-conservative apologists of Israeli wars and war crimes. The conservative bi-monthly magazine National Review also moved firmly into the ‘Israel First’ camp.

Zionist hegemony was especially strengthened when the committed Israel-Firsters gained influential positions in US State Department and foreign policy apparatus. From this period on, the different “Think Tanks”, thinly veiled propaganda mills, almost always produced pro-Israel position papers. Their activity was supported by thirty thousand foundations, and the “Think Tanks” offer a secure subsistence for their members. Their staff could regularly be present in the mass media as “experts”. But their services were used in foreign and defense policy advisory positions serving various politicians and Administrations.

The number of ZPC experts and advisors rose to the highest levels in the Clinton Administration and expanded further during the Bush Jr. and Obama regimes. The ZPC conquered first the cultural institutions, and then it extended its influence also onto the political sphere. Their influence was reinforced by billionaire Jewish-Zionists’ contributions to established think tanks, like the Brookings Institute, as well as the foundations and research institutes of both political parties. These Jewish billionaires played an especially important role in financing the two parties changing each other during elections. Their contributions influenced the nominations and candidates for office from local mayors to governors, representatives and senators, but even the Presidency of the United States depended on them.

It is estimated that as high as 60% of Democratic Party contributions came from “Israel First” benefactors. They were able to secure an automatic 90% Congressional vote on whatever issue the Israeli Foreign Office marks as priority for its US Fifth Column.

The so-called “left” was almost totally hegemonized by Zionist-Jewish influence, to the point that, within this intellectual circle, the vile “ad hominem” argumentation became an accepted tool against all those who criticized the ZPC in any respect. Hegemonized American liberals and leftists maintain their “support” for Israel on the basis of the fiction that the “bad” Israelis are the fanatical Likud party leaders while Labour and Kadima party leaders and the Israeli people want peace and a just settlement. Unfortunately, these supporters of “progressive” Zionism got a sobering answer when the Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the leader of the Labour Party, directed the bloody massacre in Gaza. The same “progressive” Labour Party has always supported all the new aggressive Israeli land seizures and colonial settlements.

It is a fact that the genocidal wars and violent settlements have the support of the vast majority of the Israeli Jewish population. Public opinion polls carried out by Israel, published in mid-November 2009 reveals that 53.2% of Israelis say the solution to the conflict with the Palestinian people is their forceful dispossession and ethnic cleansing. “Transfer” is the Zionist euphemism for this crime against humanity. Such are the “just wars” receiving unconditional support by the ‘51’ Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations.

The Zionist mass media does not publicize the fact that the organized American Jewry embraces and supports the Israeli policy which can be qualified as genocide. Instead, in the TVs and radios one can hear the clichés of a “dialogue” and “negotiated solution” between the expropriators and the dispossessed.

The Zionist cultural and political hegemony in the United States manifests itself in several mistaken or partially distorted conceptions. One of such suppositions is that Jews possess special qualities (“blood” or “genetic”). The participants to these arguments – either Zionists or anti-Semites – cite the importance of a Jewish historical tradition, which emphasizes education and learning. Many still claim that success and power comes from knowledge, merit and achievement.

The latest genetic studies refute the idea of a special, unique Jewish “gene pool”. Most contemporary Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Central Asian Khazars. The Khazars converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.D. In our days, more and more know, even in America, that they subsequently were pushed into Eastern Europe by the Mongol invasion. So, the present-day Israelis are not descendants of the ancient Jews of Israel, who lived in Canaan. Many of the antique Jewish people converted to Christianity and later to Islam. The Muslim Palestinians are the present-day descendants of the antique Jews. This was admitted by David Ben-Gurion himself, in a book he wrote together with Itzhak Ben-Zvi, when he was in New York in 1918. The book is titled Eretz Israel in the Past and Present, and its second chapter is about the Palestinian fellahin. Here we can read the following about this question:

“The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century CE. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming… They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in the new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.”

On the basis of the historical logic, it is clear that the population which was present there until the 7th century and which was found by the Muslim conquerors in this area were the descendents of the peasants of the antique Judea. The assertion according which, after Titus conquered Jerusalem, the Jews did not cultivate the land of Eretz Israel, is a wrong assertion. Ben-Gurion and his coauthor state: “The Jewish peasant, as any other agricultural person, did not leave his land easily, soaked by his own sweat… In spite of oppression and suffering, the composition of the local population remained the same.”

From all this, we would only like to point out that even the venerable Zionist politicians knew that the present-day Palestinians are the descendants of the ancient Jews.

For over one thousand years Jewish “scholarship” revolved around sterile debates and exegeses of the minutiae of the Talmud and bodies of law based on religious myths. Critical philosophers like Spinoza were looked at as renegades. The rise of scholarship and scientific thinking among Jews coincided with the growth of the Enlightenment and the establishment of liberal laws, which opened doors for promising Jewish scholars, scientists to break out of the sterile confines of the Rabbinal intellectual ghettos of the Talmud and to become secular thinkers.

Many of the great thinkers are still called “Jews” even today, because of their ancestry, like Spinoza, Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky. But they did not practice Judaism nor identify as “Jews”. The real Jewish renascence as well as the real recognition and success for this world people came from business and financial activity. These Jews became money managers in the West and overseers of feudal lords in the East. It is also interesting that, until the 19th century, the Jewish authors did not deal with the scientific processing of the history of the Jewish people, and even the first authors treated biblical legends as fact.

We must distinguish between the mass of Jews who occupy middle or lower middleclass positions in society and those few individuals who have made major contributions. We cannot regard a special Jewish “merit” or “achievement” the rise of individuals to economic power through the exploitation of labour, the extraction of rent from tenants and speculation. This cannot be compared to the achievement through real merit and achievement, namely, skills applied to advancing knowledge for the greater good of the whole of society. Zionists’ “superior race” theorists lump successful Wall Street speculators with innovative scholars as examples of “Jewish superiority” justifying or “explaining” their hegemony over the society and state.

Zionist race theories, which claim a homogenous ‘Jewish’ people and nation bound by common history and horizontal and vertical ties, is more an ideological manifesto ignoring the actual division of the Jewish population according to their place in the social hierarchy.

Jewish-Zionist hegemony in the US is partly the result of a supra or meta-historical mythology with mystical religious foundations in the Old Testament. The rise of American Zionism is tied to a virulent exclusivist tribal religious loyalty to Israel. The driving force of US Zionism is the subordination of US civil society organizations and the instrumentalization of the US military and economic resources to service Israel. Only in this way is Israel able to perform its colonial expansion and projections of power in the Middle East.

The American Middle East policy is subjected to the Zionist Power Configuration. This is a result of the latter’s accumulation of power and political-cultural conditions within the US, which weakened the articulation of alternative values and policies. The operators of the value-producing real economy, called earlier working class, totally lost the possibility that their interests should be embodied in the foreign policy of the United States.

The rise of Zionism, as a virulent form of tribal-religious identity, is linked to a foreign and remote state, which managed to exercise hegemony within US society. It was facilitated by the abdication by the US ruling class ‘establishment’ of any ‘national’ identity and its interlocking economic ties with Zionist power brokers in strategic economic sectors.

The “globalization” of US capitalism, the process of world-wide empire building, has shifted the focus of the US ruling class toward international issues, as the center of its concerns. This ruling class, at present, in all respects of its domestic economic policies, takes care not to trespass on priorities of the Zionist Power Configuration. Going “global” and the emergence of “global consciousness” has worked against challenging the Zionist pursuit of the colonial agenda of the state of Israel. The ZPC has filled a ‘power vacuum’ created by the ‘globalized elite’ according to its global empire building strategy. In this way, the ZPC has been able to instill and impose the Zionist interests in the place of US national interests.

The rise of the Zionist business elites into the top echelon of investment banking, financial institutions, real estate and insurance led to the inter-mixing of Zionist and non-Zionist members of the ruling class, in the form of a community of interests. In this new power elite, one side had a deep and abiding political commitment to Israel, while the other sector gave exclusive primacy to the accumulation of wealth and guaranteeing that state economic policy ensured profits, a deregulated financial sector and bank bailouts, policies which they shared with their Zionist partners. This profit-oriented policy proved to be advantageous to both sides of the synthesized new power elite. The non-Zionist groups of interest of the integrated power elite were not willing or able to engage in a fight with their Zionist financial colleagues. However, there are divisions, both in government and within policy advisory bodies, over Zionist control. The 16 major intelligence agencies, for instance in 2007, prepared and issued a report on Iran’s nuclear program, which debunked the Israeli-Zionist claims of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The Pew Charitable Trust, which is an organization that is independent from the parties and from the government, dealing with global research and public policy, won recognition by the fact that it prepares, sticking strictly to the facts, its surveys and analyses about the main problems of public interest for the leaders of the society and of the administration. This Pew Foundation made a study among the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, taken in October and November 2009. The survey found that over two-thirds of its members (67 percent) believe the US favored Israel too much. Yet the same percentages claimed Obama is “striking the right balance” and “Iran is a major threat to US interest”. There are always divergences in strategic and tactical questions within the American political elite. What is striking about the Pew study is the fact that these ‘dissident’ opinions within the policy elite had no impact on Obama’s subservience policy to Israel on all major issues promoted by the ZPC. Whatever the CFR “really thinks” has not “really” affected the power of the ZPC to shape policy. Therefore, the Zionist Power Configuration via its stooges in Congress and its assets in State and Treasury could assure the undisturbed achievement of its own strategy, in spite of the fact that, at such an important institution of the political elite as the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority opposed this line.

In other words, Zionist power at the top is uncontested and free to work the lower echelons of the political system and class structure for its own interest. This includes the wholesale purchase of political parties and the retail buyout of congressional politicians on key foreign policy committees.

The latter is facilitated by the success of the Israel First Political Action committees (PAC) which promotes the selection of Zionist Congress people to key committee posts. Four of the top fifteen Congress committees are funded by Wall Street speculators, who are Zionists. Eleven of the top fifteen committees are led by Democrats, who receive 60% of their contributions from Zionist multi-millionaires in Los Angeles, New York, and south Florida and other metropolitan centers.

The political class, party leaders, executive and congress people, have also fully disregarded the economic interests of the pro-American working class, in which the endogenous growth and the avoidance of foreign entanglements (interventionism) played an important role. The current political class of the United States favors military driven empire building – undermining any popular democratic definition of American ‘national interest’.

Moreover, the military nature of empire building strengthens the Zionist-Israeli projection of regional military power and hegemony in the Middle East area. This military-driven imperialism weakens any effort to develop alternative US overseas economic interests and policies, especially with Moslem and Middle East oil countries. If there were such a policy, it could counter Israeli-Zionist policies designed to privilege Israeli military expansion and colonial interests.

In the value-producing sector we can witness the decline of the values embedded in working class solidarity and defense of republican virtues and interests. This has opened the door for the minority of Zionist cadres to influence mass culture and civil society organizations. All this is completed with the fact that they were able to divert American trade union pension funds to Israeli investments with no opposition from the part of the employees.

Professor James Petras researched for decades, as a sociologist, the life conditions of social groups performing value-producing work, and was shocked when he witnessed that the Zionist trade union leaders built co-operative housing from the trade union funds when the members of the trade unions led by them were predominantly Jews. On the contrary, when most of the members were Afro-American and Hispanic workers, hundreds of millions of member pension funds and dues were channeled into purchasing Israel bonds. Many current (minority) leaders of trade unions and Afro-Hispanic ethnic organizations have been co-opted by the ZPC through travels to Israel from public money and subject to propaganda campaigns promoting Israeli interests. In universities, municipal politics, professional associations, Israel Firsters are present everywhere, and operate to stifle any debate, let alone criticism, of Israeli war crimes. Zionists in America eliminate debate on American democratic foreign policy options in the Middle East. They are favoring unconditional submission to Israel. Millions of American individuals, who may question the “Israel First” option, are frightened, intimidated and unwilling to face the onslaught of organized, zealous Zionist-Jewish notables, who can influence their employers and jeopardize their jobs and promotions.

Is there any alternative to the Zionist hegemony?

Professor Petras mentions that in other countries, especially where independent class conscious trade unions, autonomous and organized anti-Zionist professional and academic groups exist, which can defend their intellectual independence against the centralized Zionist power. They still can exert intellectual resistance for the sake of a more objective information of the public opinion. Where internationalist movements are strong, as in support for Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonialism, the local ZPC has not been able to use their economic power and media ownership to impose their hegemony over all segments of civil society. The major potential counterweight to Zionist Israel First hegemony in the US would be in a revival and strengthening of patriotic consciousness of those who perform value-producing work.

America’s “special relation” with Israel has been at an enormous cost to the American working classes. This “friendship” forced onto America means an amount of over $1.5 trillion dollars (one trillion = one thousand billions) in foreign aid, loan guarantees, hijacked technological innovations, lost overseas investment opportunities. Not to mention the wars on Israel’s behalf, and the greatest loss consists of lost lives of those people who died or got cripple in these wars fought for the Israeli hegemony. The burden of all this was carried by the Americans working in the value-producing sector.

The American patriotic and hard-working people have all reasons to revolt against the servile attitude of the entire political class, to put an end to the total submission of their native land to the ZPC and its patrons in Israel. But today tens of millions of Americans are disillusioned with “patriotic” appeals, whose purpose is to promote the expansionist wars of the money empire (including wars waged for Israel) at the expense of their living standards. Right wing money rule pro-capitalist politicians use patriotic rhetoric to deflect attention from the domestic failures of capitalism and the massive transfers of wealth to Wall Street speculators. This is why reference to “patriotism” is devaluated.

These right wing money rule apologets devaluated the noble and lofty patriotism, with a perverse manipulation, into a primitive ‘nationalism’. An example for this is when they turned native born workers against immigrant workers. The real solution would be if America did not have to wage costly wars for Israel’s interests, on the order of the ZPC. This cynical division of the value-producing workers, in turn, hinders the growth of a national popular movement, which could raise more efficiently against the Wall Street speculators and the empire-building imperialist policy than the movement Occupy Wall Street, which the money rule world elite managed to divide and fragment.

The family and relatives of the Zionist power configuration, who promote US wars for Israel in the Middle East, are rarely to be found in the armed forces, least of all at the frontlines. The figure of the Zionists in the armed forces would be one-thirtieth of one percent. It is a biting irony that more American Zionists are more eager to join the Israeli ‘Defense’ Forces than to put on an American uniform.

Yet Zionists in public office, in the Pentagon, executive branch and the White House, who design and promote war policies and military-driven sanctions, are in the forefront of shedding American working class lives, especially now when jobless American workers, including many minorities, are forced to seek employment in the military.

Professor Petras thinks that it is the right time a soldier’s anti-war movement could be organized within the US Army and energized under the banner: “A Zionist war is a not the American workers’ fight”. If the left and pacifists were not so beholden to their Jewish colleagues ‘sensibilities”, this slogan could be issued right now. The anti-war leaders have been reluctant to raise the issue of the Zionist/ Israeli influence in promoting US war policies.

Genuine patriotic solidarity is weak at the top and bottom of the society, lacking any meaningful recall of anti-colonial, anti-slavery, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist identity of America. In contrast, the Zionist fifth column is driven by a powerful mythological-tribal race-driven identity. The motifs of which in some cases are religious driven and in others embedded in a deep-rooted secular sense of racial superiority, which does not require any religious myths any more.

The Israeli hegemony is embedded in a Zion-centric cultural universe, which forms a specific closed world, and which has not been really challenged by Anglo-America’s flaccid WASP intellectuals. Their intellectual weakness and cowardice is covered by a thin veneer of “cosmopolitan” impotence. Their pusillanimous silence and even complicity is intended to ‘protect the sensitivities’ of their Zionist colleagues. The result is that they refrain themselves regarding any forthright critique of the power of the Zionist money rule world elite in America.

According to Professor Petras, only a revived working class movement, which recovers its historical memory of class solidarity, can enhance the establishment of a first independent American republic. Only the solidarity of those who perform value-producing work will be able to free America from under the hegemony of the Zionist money rule world elite and of the Wall Street usurer bankers. The most urgent duties include starting a public debate about Zionist power and hegemony in mass media institutions, and the US wars for Israel in the Middle East must be placed firstly under the pressure of public opinion and critically analyzed. The Americans must decide whether they oppose or not the Israeli war crimes and expansion and US government support of Israel by confronting the ZPC. They also have to decide whether they should open or not a public debate on what the United States should do about fighting Zionist authoritarianism, witch hunts and hate crimes in the Middle East.

The American society must discuss and propose a democratic foreign policy, which opposes military intervention, sanctions and economic blockades, by tackling American militarists and Israel’s foreign agents. It is hard to say what it should be done and how it can be enforced by the society. The American public opinion must be informed about the Obama regime’s charade – of talking peace to the American people while satisfying all demands of the Israeli war machine. Of talking about an evenhanded and just Middle East policy while appointing committed Zionists to top government policy positions. It must be demanded that the Justice Department should enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act toward the ‘51 Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations’ and especially AIPAC.

Appointment of double citizens to key government positions must be opposed

At the end of his long study, which we summarized briefly here, Professor Petras denominates a few persons having a dual citizenship and thus a double loyalty. He urges the demand that Undersecretary of Treasury and Israel Firster Stuart Levey be investigated and prosecuted for gross malfeasance of office for his refusal to investigate the illegal billion-dollar money laundering operations by US Zionists in the funding of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Stuart Levey is also responsible for his promotion of economic sanctions against trade with Iran. These sanctions have cost US workers thousands of jobs and the crippled US economy billions of dollars in lost trade.

The average per capita income of Israelis exceeds that of 40% of Americans. Therefore military and economic aid to Israel should be decreased. The Americans also should combat the widespread Zionist hate propaganda, organized and publicized by the ZPC, against Muslin Americans and Arab American, their cultural foundations and charities. They should demystify Zionist claims that the Jews’ ancestral homeland is Israel, rather than North Africa and Central Asia, and that there is no historic basis for the Right of Return. And finally, they should support the class and popular struggle against finance, real estate and insurance billionaires of Wall Street for their pillage of the American economy, who made their huge fortunes through financial and insurance speculations and real estate transactions. Leaning on this fortune, they increased the exploitation of the Americans performing value-producing work, and, through corruption, they bought the American politicians to serve their interests and US and Israeli war aims.

So the money rule world elite was not able to conquer America with the cultural Marxism. The expropriation of the money system would not have been enough itself for reaching its present-day rule situation. The money rule world elite defeated the society of the United States, the order of values and Christian spirituality of the Americans, the most free nation in the world with the cultural Marxism. The plan of campaign of this successful ideological war was worked out and helped to be put into practice by the Zionist intellectual workshop became known as the Frankfurter Schule (School of Frankfurt), which is considered the ruling intellectual trend not only in America, but in the whole European area, which got under the hegemony of the Zionist money rule world elite.

The philosophical School of Frankfurt and the cultural revolution

A group of social scientists emigrated to America from Germany has started, already in the 1930s and 1940s, such a provocative transformation of the contemporary society and culture, which wanted to put into practice those theories, which were elaborated by them on the basis of the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Max Weber. Their idea of a “cultural revolution” was not particularly new. Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), who for fifteen years had been a high-ranked freemason, had this to say:

“Until now, nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion. But here an important question arises: can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is?”

The Philosophical School of Frankfurt, which we already referred to in the first part of the present writing, actually came to life in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, because it was believed that a Workers’ Revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. It failed to do so. Towards the end of 1922, the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider the reasons for this failure. On Lenin’s initiative, a meeting was organized at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. The aim of the meeting was to throw light on the meaning of Marx’s Cultural Revolution, and how his ideas could be applied under the current circumstances in Soviet Russia and Europe.

The meeting was attended also by György Lukács, a Jewish Hungarian money aristocrat and son of one of the ultra-rich bankers in the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy, who was a radical leftist during World War I, and then became a Communist. A good Marxist theoretician, he had developed the idea of “Revolution and Eros”, namely how can the sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction. After the meeting, in 1923, Lukács joined the Institute of Social Research, founded by the Communist Party of Germany, operating in the framework of the University of Frankfurt. This institute became famous later under the name of the School of Frankfurt. Its funders created it, in fact, following the pattern of the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. When, in 1933, the national socialists came to power in Germany, several members of the School of Frankfurt emigrated to the United States. There they continued their research work, which they started already in Germany. The presupposed that, behind the success of national socialism, there were some effects connected with certain beliefs, forms of behaviour and values. They incorporated the Marxist analysis and Freudian psychoanalysis into their methods. The synthesis of these two resulted in that critical theory, which became the main characteristic of the School of Frankfurt. According to the Frankfurt scholars, it is necessary to perform the analysis of the main elements of the Western culture – among them the Christianity, the capitalism, the authority, the family, the patriarchate, the hierarchy, the moral, the tradition, the sexual abstinence, the loyalty, the patriotism, the nationalism, the inheriting, the people-blood-racial view, the social conventions an the conservativism – and an annihilating critique must be exerted over all these.

Willi Münzenberg, another Marxist revolutionary Jew, proposed solutions to the solution of the basic problems besetting society. Although he was considered the man of compromises, he proposed the following:

It is necessary to organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Münzenberg was Lenin’s close colleague in Switzerland, but he did not travel with the closed train to Helsinki, by which Lenin started to take part in the Bolshevik coup, which was later called revolution. He stayed in the West, he became a successful newspaper editor and distributor. In parallel with this, as a background politician of great influence, he controlled, from behind the curtain, the world rule strategy of the internationalist money rule elite called “communist revolution”. Communism and money rule dictatorship were two sides of the same coin even at that time.

Another Frankfurt scholar, Ralph de Toledano founded in the United States the bimonthly magazine National Review. According to Toledano, the Moscow meeting was more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself. Lenin died in 1924, but by that time Stalin had risen to power and was beginning to look on Willi Münzenberg and György Lukács with suspicion. Other Jewish revolutionaries, like Trotsky, he regarded as dangerous Marxist “revisionists”. Stalin thought that all three were trying to  introduce concepts into Marxism that were alien to Marxism and which served only a Jewish agenda and not the interests of the working class. In June 1940, on Stalin’s orders, Münzenberg was murdered, in the south of France, by a NKVD assassination squad. Trotsky had a similar end in Mexico.

After the death of Lenin, Lukács moved to Germany. Here he chaired the first international meeting of a group of Communist oriented sociologists. This gathering was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School. It was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research). In 1923, the Institute had been officially established, and funded by the Marxist Felix Weil. Weil, born in Argentina into a wealthy Jewish family, was sent to attend school in Germany as a child. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became a committed Marxist. The director of the Institute for Social Research, Carl Grünberg, who was also a convinced Marxist, led the institution between 1923 and 1929. His successor became Max Horkheimer in 1930, who openly propagated that the research institute should perform its activity on the basis of the Marxist theory. When Hitler came to power, the Institute was closed and most of its members fled to the United States and ended up as academics at major US universities: Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley. The School included among its members Herbert Marcuse, the star ideologist of 1960s student revolts.

All leading members of the Frankfurt School, except Jürgen Habermas, were of Jewish origin. They all believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the social problems he has to face. Thus the individual endowed with belief would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke a socialist revolution. The primary task of the Frankfurt intellectual workshop, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine and annihilate the basis of the faith, the “Judeo-Christian legacy”, and to offer in exchange an anarchist-nihilist pseudo-rationalism.

Lasha Darkmoon stated in his writing titled Satan’s Secret Agents: the Frankfurt School and their Evil Agenda that “Judeo-Christianism” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Judaism and Christianity are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Since most Jews are actively hostile to Christianity, and since Talmudic Jews actually take pleasure in the thought of Christ being boiled in excrement in hell, to speak of the “Judeo-Christian legacy” is clearly nonsensical. To undermine Western civilization, the Frankfurt School finally called for the most negative and destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life. To de-stabilize society and bring it to its knees, to engineer collapse, to produce crisis and catastrophe – this became the main aim of these Jewish revolutionaries of the Frankfurt School, masquerading as high-powered intellectuals. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus, continuing the revolutionary work of the Western Marxists by other means.

The Frankfurt School made the following twelve recommendations – all of them calculated to undermine the foundations of society and create such a hopeless situation, where only the world-wide proletarian revolution could be the solution. The twelve strategic goals are the following:

  1. The creation of racism offences and hate speech laws.
  2. Continual change of all dimensions of life, to create confusion (e,g., in school curricula).
  3. Masturbation propaganda in schools, combined with the homosexualization of childrenand their corruption by exposing them to child porn in the classroom.
  4. The systematic undermining of parental and teachers’ authority.
  5. Huge immigration to destroy national identity and foment future race wars.
  6. The systematic promotion of excessive drinking and recreational drugs.
  7. The systematic promotion of sexual deviance in society.
  8. An unreliable legal system with bias against the victims of crime.
  9. Dependency on state benefits.
  10. Control and dumbing down of media.
  11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
  12. All all-out attack on Christianity and the emptying of churches.

To point 10 we can add that, in our days, 96% of the world’s media is under the control of six such companies, which are owned by the Zionist money cartel. All institutions of the world media take over most of information from AP and Reuters. The deterimining institution is Reuters, since it belongs to the sphere of interest or ownership of the House of the Rothschilds.

In the Soviet Union, under Stalin and his Communist Jews, the emptying of churches was accomplished by the simple expedient of burning most the churches down, others were transformed into warehouses. Only the synagogues were exempted, and even new ones were built. Coincidentally, most of the 12 aims and objectives mentioned above were set out prominently in the pages of that alleged “forgery”, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Jewish philosophers of the Frankfurt School, it seems, had been heavily influenced by the truths valid until the present day of the Protocols, this historical forgery (since it was not written in the place and time when and where its propagators alleged). One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of “pansexualism”. This includes the promiscuity, the search for indiscriminate sexual pleasure, the promotion of “unisex”, the blurring of distinctions between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women, and, finally, the undermining of heterosexuality at the expense of homosexuality – as, for example, in the idea of “same-sex marriage” and the adoption of children by homosexual couples. It seems that they really managed to “make the West so corrupt that it stinks”, as Willi Münzenberg anticipated.

The members of the Frankfurt School believed there were two types of revolution. One of them is the political revolution and the other is the cultural revolution. They were more concerned with cultural revolution. Their goal was to perform the demolition of the established order from within. “Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness”, they taught. Thus they placed the emphasis on the so-called “reforms”, which were to be made so slowly and subtly that these changes for the worse were barely perceptible. The Frankfurt School managed to undermine the social order, and so prepare the ground for the continuous and aggressive changes as a long-term project. The systematic erosion of Christian moral values and the wide promotion of sexual perversion is known as cultural Marxism. In his mentioned writing, Lasha Darkmoon states that, thanks to the efforts of organized Jewry which controls 96 percent of the world’s media, cultural Marxism has largely triumphed and Christianity lies in ruins. According to him, society has now reached its rockbottom moral nadir. These iconoclasts kept their sights firmly fixed on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture. Each of these would be their target. If things did not go from bad to worse, year after year, they were not succeeding. To these revolutionary Jewish thinkers, bad was good — and worse was better.

The Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory preached that the “authoritarian personality” was a product of the patriarchal family. There is nothing new in this, since this is an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the Communist Manifesto (1848), about the radical notion of a “community of women”. Already in his earlier book, The German Ideology (1845), he had written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. So it is not so strange that this was one of the basic tenets of the Critical Theory: the need to break down the family unit. According to them all families were essentially evil, even happy families, so they had to be destroyed. It was better if children had no parents, or did not know who their parents were. Or if they were orphans of the state. Relationship based on romantic love between the sexes, leading to stable long-term marriages, is detrimental, because it hinders the efficient control over people. Therefore, it was better if these long-term couple relationships were destroyed in favor of short-term, unstable, promiscuous relationships. After all, people living in happy families cannot be driven to that stage of despair in which they would search for the solution in the revolution. The whole point of the Cultural Revolution was “to create a culture of pessimism” (Lukács) and “to make life impossible for everyone” (Münzenberg). And the modernization gave even more impetus to this cultural pessimism , completed with audio-visual technique and cybernetics.

From the 1920s, György Lukács preached that “Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.” To the analyst it seems that whatever was good in human relationships and made the relationship between two people closer and tighter, simply had to be destroyed, according to the Frankfurt scholars. And if people didn’t have problems, then problems would have to be manufactured to make traditional life, the possible harmony impossible”. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender.

In 1919, György Lukács, as the cultural commissary of the Communist dictatorship in Hungary, released the programme called “cultural terrorism”. In schools, pupils were taught about free love, sexual life, the out-of-datedness of the moral values of the middle class families and of monogamy. Religion is not needed, because it deprives people from all lust. This cultural terrorism of György Lukács was the forerunner of today’s political correctness.

One of the main ideologists of this was Herbert Marcuse, the author of the One Dimensional Man. Marcuse, under the guise of “women’s liberation” and by the New Left movement in the 1960s, proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. The idea that women should run society and wear the trousers, telling men what to do, had an enormous appeal to certain bossy types of women with a surplus of testosterone, particularly to man-hating lesbians. Many of these misguided females were to become evangelists for radical feminism, some even proposing to cut themselves off from the male sex completely and live in communes of their own. Among feminists, the number of Jewish women is huge. Out of all proportion to their percentage in the population.

Marcuse propagated the “Great Refusal”: “All basic Western values must be rejected, and it is necessary to introduce the liberal sexuality, as well as the accomplishment of the goals of the feminist and black revolutionaries.”

In his book An Essay On Liberation, he urged the radical re-evaluation of the traditional order of values. He demanded the liberation from under the taboos, the cultural upheaval and the cult of critique. Marcuse also wanted a linguistic revolution, which would be suitable for the changing of the meanings of words. He asserted on the racial conflict that it is a sin burdening the white man. The goal of Marcuse was to change the moral of the society. According to him, for this it is necessary to liberate the ancient power of sexuality from under the limits of civilization.

In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, an honored and adulated member of the Frankfurt School, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of “natural society”, that is where the women rule in the family. To this, the strict Lasha Darkmoon added that Reich was a compulsive masturbator and sexual pervert, who had entertained incestuous longings for his own mother. This versatile sexual deviant, became a cult figure on the left in the 1960s, along with the equally sex-obsessed Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse invented and popularized of the slogan “Make love, not war” during the 1968 student movements. He was one of the godfathers of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s as well as the patron saints of the Feminist movement.

Wilhelm Reich wanted to harmonize Sigmund Freud’s psychology with Karl Marx’s economic theory. We have already referred to his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism, published in 1933. In it, he exposed that the Frankfurt School separated from the Marxist sociology, which opposed the bourgeois to the proletariat. Instead of this, the struggle must go on between the reactionary and the revolutionary.

In another book of his, titled Sexual Revolution, Wilhelm Reich writes: “The dictatorial family is, to a smaller degree, the dictatorial state itself. The structure of the self-governing character of man was basically created by the embedding of sexual prohibitions and fears into the living substance of sexual incentives. The family imperialism is ideologically repeated in the national imperialism. […] The authoritarian family is such a factor in which a reactionary ideology and reactionary structures are established.”

Another Reich, Charles A. Reich, wrote in his book The Greening of America as follows: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and it will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. […]This is the revolution of the new generation.”

Thus, the “political correctness” of our days is a continuation of the intellectual impact of the Frankfurt School. Political correctness was contributed by Betty Friedan, who became the founder of the American feminist movement. Friedan was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but was under their influence. In her book The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan deals in detail with the self-achievement theory of social psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse, and was also in relationship with Erich Fromm. Friedan’s intellectual contact with the ideology of the Frankfurt School can be considered determining. Thus, for instance, what Friedan teaches about the change of the sexual roles, is in concordance with what György Lukács urged concerning the annihilation of the old values and Marcuse concerning the change of the content of values.

When the “political correctness” or, in other words, the “cultural Marxism” started to spread, its representatives tried to present their views in an attractive way. They declared that they are only driven by the sensibility toward other people and tolerance. But all this only served as a deception. The so-called political correctness, with the criminalization of the “hate speech”, in fact set as a goal the restriction and limitation of the freedom of opinion, the thought control and the upheaval of the traditional social order. In this way, the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School proved to be more destructive than Marx’s economic Marxism. The latter ruined Russia, but did not praise the sexual perversion and did not try to force a behaviour which is contradictory to the natural laws onto the society.

An adept of the upheaval and of the cultural revolution was also Saul Alinsky of Chicago, a secular Jew, who, as a bashful Marxist, did not call himself a revolutionary, only a community organizer. Formally, Alinsky did not join the Frankfurt School, but followed its goals and attained important success with his new methods. When the so-called new world order set in, he his moral-avoiding, pragmatic, upheaval methods got again into the limelight, since they serve well the tradition-destroying strategy of the money rule world elite for the seizing and obtaining of the power.

The relationship of the School of Frankfurt with the Judaism

The School of Frankfurt had a dual attitude to Judaism. On one hand, as a continuer of the enlightenment, it confronted sharply the authoritarianism, the traditionalism and the institutions inherited from the past, among them the religion. Most of the social scientists belonging to the School of Frankfurt were secular Jews, who did not support any organized religion, did not follow either the religious traditions or the cultural Judaism. This group of secular Jews included Heinrich Heine, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Their lives and work was not determined by Judaism, but it did not have a determining impact even on their consciousness of identity. So the relationship of the School of Frankfurt with the Judaism was rather various.

On the other hand, there was another group of the leading personalities which received Orthodox Jewish education, knew and applied the regulations of Judaism. There were also such members of the School, in the lives of whom Judaism played an important role, among them Walter Benjamin and Erich Fromm. Judaism played an important role in a decisive period of their life. But Judaism had a great impact also on Leo Löwenthal and Max Horkheimer. On the other hand, the Jewish identity was not important either to Herbert Marcuse or Theodor Wiesegrund Adorno. All the above mentioned persons felt outsider in the Weimar Germany, and after 1930, predominantly due to their Jewish origin, they left Germany.

To a certain extent, the members of the School of Frankfurt were outsiders even in the United States, which they considered partly the consequence of their Jewish origin. This was the period when the main topic of their activity became the anti-Semitism, the prejudices and the evolution of the situation of the Jews. In the Weimar Germany, until 1934, the examination of the situation of the Jews was not the main field of research of the School of Frankfurt, and they even did not write noteworthy books about this. Max Horkheimer wrote in 1938 a study titled The Jews in Europe, in which he exposed that the anti-Semitism expresses the adversities of the last phase of monopoly capitalism.

Judaism, psychoanalysis and Marxism was alloyed in the oeuvre of Erich Fromm. It was him who combined the religious view of Judaism with the concepts of the enlightenment. Erich Fromm was not a traditional and a secular Jew at the same time, but these two mentalities were still present in his early works. Erich Fromm was born in an Orthodox Jewish family and there were several Rabbis among the ascendants of both of his parents.

The young Fromm thoroughly studied the Talmud with his friend, Leo Löwenthal, who was the disciple of Nehemiah Nobel, Chief Rabbi of the biggest synagogue in Frankfurt. At the beginning of the 1920s, Fromm got acquainted with the psychoanalysis, and also his wife, the Jewish Frieda Reichmann, was a practical performer of the psychoanalysis. Reichmann operated a private institution in Heidelberg, where she combined the psychoanalysis with the Jewish traditions, therefore the Institute was nicknamed “Torah-peutic Clinic”. Also Fromm became a practicing psychoanalyst in 1927. In his first study titled The Sabbath, he argued that “The Sabbath originally served as a reminder of the killing of the father and the winning of the mother; the commandment not to work served as a penance for original sin and for its repetition through regression to the pre-genital stage.” This “special language” of psychoanalysis is difficult to understand at first reading, but Erich Fromm, even in his later sociological works (for instance The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness), always emphasized the determining role of sexuality.

What is the essence of Jewish identity?

Earlier we have already mentioned that the differentiating criteria of Semitism are: separatism; double standard; if possible, living on others’ work; speculating with money and taking usury; creation of a tight community of interest; fear and hatred of those who threaten the community; as well as the consistent reprisal and revenge. Why do the Jewish communities insist on preserving, at any price, their community affiliation and Jewish self-identity? In the 21st century, nearly two billion Christians and 800 million Muslims live on our Earth. The number of those who declare themselves Jews is 12-14 millions. This shows that the totality of the Jewry, taking their number into account, forms a relatively little religious and national community, which is less than one quarter per cent of the seven billion people living on the Earth.

The influence of the Jewry, the Judaism and the Jewish organizations, nevertheless, cannot be measured with the number of those who have Jewish identity. Milton Himmelfarb, an American Jewish writer, expressed this as follows:

“Any Jew knows how an average man he is in himself. If, on the other hand, we take them into account together, they are able to do great things and they are inexplicable… The number of the Jews in the world is lesser than a tiny mistake in the Chinese census. Still, we are greater than our number. Great things are happening around us and with us.”

In 1789, the year of the French revolution, the modern secular national state was born. The French National Assembly issued, on 20th August, the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights, which already included that all human beings, from their birth, are free and have equal rights. The question was also formulated: does this apply also to the Jews? Can all Jews be considered free and equal? Are they equal with all other citizens?

At the time of the mentioned Declaration, anti-Jew revolts burst out in Alsace-Lorraine. This already signaled that the creation of a secular national state does not put an end to the anti-Jew feelings. All that happened was that this state secularized the anti-Jew attitude, which was given the name anti-Semitism, but only in 1879. We have already cited before Clermont-Tonnerre, who expressed clearly that the Jews, as a separate nation, cannot separate and cannot form a state within the state. On the other hand, as individuals, they are considered full right French citizens.

With this, the “Jewish question”, that certain “Judenfrage” was born, which then led, in Germany, at the beginning of the 1940s, to the “final solution”, the “Endlösung”. One hundred years after the French revolution, the Budapest-born Tivadar (Theodor) Herzl, who became a known journalist in Vienna, was on the opinion, together with many of his Jewish contemporaries, that the secular national state does not put an end to anti-Semitism, therefore – especially after the Dreyfus Case – there is no other solution than the Jewish communities living in different countries should create their own national homes, that is the Jewish people should have their own national state.

In the 21st century, out of the two numerous Jewish communities, one lives in Israel, the other in the United States. Nevertheless, in the middle of the 19th century, nearly 90% of the Jewry lived in the different European countries. Those Jews who emigrated to America, or those who settled down in Israel, wanted to leave Europe. They thought it was the only opportunity to get rid of the prejudices and begin a totally new life if they left Europe.

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on Jewish identity

Jonathan Sacks, the Orthodox Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, states in his work titled Love, Hate and Jewish Identity that Israel cannot be regarded simply as a secular democracy or the follower of the American pluralist establishment. Both the Jewish communities living in Israel and America vividly feel the Jewish experience lived over in Europe, which they would like to forget partly. According to Jonathan Sacks, the collective Jewish experience is characterized by two important circumstances. The first is that the Jews arrived to modernity too late. It was not preceded by a previous long period, as it happened in the case of the history of Christian Europe. There was no Renascence, no Reformation, no wars of religion, and even the Renascence did not happen within the Jewish communities. The Jews had to face a series of extremely complex challenges. The Enlightenment meant an intellectual challenge. And the emancipation meant a political one. To this was added the extremely important social challenge, the integration. The way the Jews lived and how they organized their lives, everything they believed in, suddenly and at once was questioned. These question marks were put either with reference to the progress, or in the form of prejudices. The communities, closed out from the mainstream of the European culture for centuries, were hit by these unexpected impacts. Out of them, even only one could have caused a great crisis in the continuity of the Jewish faith and way of life.

The book is unfinished, we need a volunteer translator fo finish it.